The Pope: We are Christians because we belong to the Church, "can't love God outside of the Church"

ealgeone:

No the burden is on you protestants to show what is correct. Now again, worshiping Mary is a falsehood that comes from bible thumpers and fundamentalist. Nobody worships Mary, she is venerated and honored yes. Mary did play a unique role in Salvation history, she was the person God chose for Christ to become “incarnate” which means the blood he shared was her blood for God in his Divine Nature, is pure spirit and thus does not have blood. So the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and thus the Divine and Human natures of the Divine Person, CHrist, was incarnate and born of the Virgin Mary. So yes, she did have a singular and unique role in ‘salvation history”

As for Scripture and Tradition, where does it say not to believe both of them. The orthodox Church Fathers all held to Apostolic Tradition of which both sacred scripture and tradition flowed from. None held to a “sola scriptura” the way post 16th century Protestantism holds. The novelty is on you all, not the Catholic, nor the Orthodox Church, who holds the same views as Rome on Scripture and Tradition.

As for the Church as the final teacher of matters and faith. Did the Apostles subject their teachings to the public. Every man and their Bible for themselves is “chaos” and each man setting their own doctrine is not supported by the Apostles. Again, this elevation of the “priesthood of all believers” to mean each man or woman gets to read the bible and determine correct doctrine is exactly why Protestant Christianity at the “Doctrinal level/Institutional level” is a bunch of “split p’s”

As for relics, icons, statues, the converse is true, as the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787AD stated, those who reject icons, sacred art etc are heretics and in fact, the rejection of such things is contradiction to the reality of the Incarnation of Christ.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum07.htm

Mary does intercede for us in heaven, as do all the Angels in Saints. Since Christ was incarnate of Mary, she again did participate in a unique way the salvation history and yes, she, as all the angels and saints continue to pray for the members of the Church here on earth.

As the Apostles Creed states, I believe in the “communion of saints”...

And finally, this use of the word Cult is really nonsense. The cults are more of these local protestant churches run by the likes of Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc, who of course, thought they were enlightened to read the scriptures and come up with what “Revelation” truly means, etc. And lets not get into that Kansas Westboro Baptist Church. Of course, all sola scriptura protestants “of course, wink, wink”

you wrote:

“When you teach the following you achieve cult status:”

None of the things you list have anything to do with “cult status”:

“1)worshipping/praying to Mary and that she was sinless in direct contradiction of scripture which says all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...you’re a cult”

Mary is not worshipped. Asking for her intercession is not the hallmark of a cult. Also, her sinlessness is not in contradiction of scripture (we understand the hyperbole in St. Paul’s writings). Since her sinlessness is from Christ it has nothing to do with a cult.

“2)Mary plays a role in our salvation”

Made clear by scripture. She too would be pierced after all. All she did was be of service and remains so.

“3)when you declare you have to believe BOTH scripture and tradition”

St. Paul said as much.

“4)when you teach that only a priest can explain the Scriptures”

That is not a Catholic teaching. The teaching is that the Church and her tradition explain scripture. If you’re going to attack Catholic beliefs wouldn’t help if you actually knew what those beliefs are? Otherwise you sound like a mindless cult member lashing out blindly.

“5)when you teach it’s ok to have relics, statues of saints, mary, etc,”

They are okay. Next!

“6)when you assign to mary titles such as co-redemtrix and mediatrix and mediatrix of all graces...you’re a cult.”

No, you’re merely awarding titles that reflect how she served God. As St. Bernard said, ‘Let us not imagine that we obscure the glory of the Son by the great praise we lavish on the Mother; for the more she is honored, the greater is the glory of her Son.’ ‘There can be no doubt,’ said Bernard, ‘that whatever we say in praise of the Mother is equally in praise of the Son’ (Hom. iv. sup. Miss.).

“7) when you teach that as no man goes to the Father but through Christ, so no man goes to Christ but by His mother, you’re a cult. The first part of this is ok. It’s the second part that’s cult territory.”

Once again you invent a teaching that doesn’t actually exist and try to pass it off as a Catholic teaching.

8) when you teach that Mary did not lay aside her salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation....you’re a cult.

Mary always remained true to her Son. She will always intercede for us. There’s nothing cult like about that or a belief in it.

“and we haven’t even talked about indulgences, penance, having to confess to a priest, etc.”

None of those things is cult like either. Confession to a priest is right out of John 20:19-23.

“Hey...this could be a Jeff Foxworthy routine.”

Only you’re the butt of the joke.

“The burden is on the Roman Catholic Church to show sound Biblical support for these false teachings....”

No. Since the Protestant sects came more than 1400 years later than Catholics it is the burden of those sects to prove that Catholic beliefs are false to begin with.

“which they cannot. Without having tradition to appeal to, these false teachings cannot be justified by reading the Word and keeping the text in context.”

That’s a false claim. Take for instance confession. It’s right there in John 20:19-23.

Protestants sects created cults.

Sorry dude,

When you have a statue you kneel down before and pray to....that's worship.

The immaculate conception contradicts Romans 3:23

As for Scripture and Tradition, where does it say not to believe both of them.

Jesus often said, "it is written" and on more than one occasion condemned tradition that went against the Word. The three verses the RCC claims to support tradition are taken so out of context it is almost laughable.

The 2nd council of nicea is then in contradiction of scripture where it says not to have any graven images.

We have zero Biblical proof Mary is intervening for us other than some hopeful statements by some councils or early writers. Same with the other saints unless you take a couple of verses out of context in Revelation.

I'll be content with the Holy Spirit and Jesus intervening for us. The Bible clearly notes these two are doing this.

We haven't even gotten into the business of losing your faith due to certain sins...which again, isn't supported by Scripture.

We haven't touched on indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc....again, all non-biblical.

So yes...the burden is on the RCC to show scripturally the support for these "teachings". The RCC is the one who has deviated from the teachings of the Bible.

I know you really don't won't to compare Westboro with what's happening within the RCC and all of those "celibate" (again non-biblical) priests and little boys. wink, wink.

So which faith has God abandoned again?

The 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis passed “Human Sexuality, Gift and Trust”,[2] which approved more positive assessments of same-gender partnerships in the church. On 21 August 2009, the same body passed four ministry policy resolutions that opened the way for congregations to recognize and support such partnerships and for those in committed same-gender partnerships to be rostered leaders within the ELCA.[3] [4]

In 2013, openly gay Lutheran Guy Erwin, who has lived in a gay partnership for 19 years, was installed in California as Bishop of the ELCA’s Southwest California Synod.[5]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada

In July 2011 Churchwide Assembly of Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada passed a new sexuality statement, permitting clergy in committed same-gender partnerships and allowing the blessing of same-sex unions.[6]
In Europe

In many European Lutheran church, open LGBT people can work as Lutheran pastors. The Lutheran Church in Great Britain has stepped back from a more accepting position of LGBT Christians for fear of losing its African and Asian congregations.

I like it too, but I always want more. Less contradictions, more pre-VII talk.

For example, he says here one can not love God outside of the Church, but then VII states that Muslims adore the same God as we do. And he prays with those he says can not love God outside of the Church.

When he states that it is "dangerous and harmful". Clearly tell all other denominations and all other religions WHY: Because Outside the Catholic Church there is No Salvation.

If you're going to ruffle feathers, then ruffle feathers.

Don’t care. Never said the Lutherans where better than Catholics at this point. Just pointing out how meaningless and archaic the Pope is to non Catholics.

My church is lead by Jesus Christ. Your church is lead by man, a corruptible man, as corruptible as anything that comes out of the ELCA — which by the way isn’t Lutheran anymore, it’s just part of the ‘reformed’ church movement.

Good thing I’m LCMS.

Your “church” is lead by women pastors and openly homosexual pastors that are “married” to their boyfriends. Who has abandoned God?

My church is Jesus Christ ... Stop trying to tell me Jesus is gay.

Why do you believe that Jesus was gay?

ealgeone:

So when Scripture is interpreted to refer to Mary and intercession, it is taken out of context. Of course, that is your reply. The entire issue of icons and images taken up at 2nd Nicea was due to charges being made by “Islam”, which sound very similar to yours. The use of icons and images is not forbidden. You are mistaken, worshiping them as God [false God] is forbidden. The idols today are worship of Money, Politics, Economics, etc.

As for Romans 3:23. “all have sinned”, not sure I take it to mean what you mean. By definition, a child under the age of reason “can’t sin” personally, although they like all humanity, have original sin. In the context of the passage, Saint Paul was talking to certain Jewish groups who seemed to be elitist and setting themselves up over the Gentiles. This is more of using “all” to describe the condition of the entire human race and their need for redemption. Mary was saved by God’s Grace and filled with God’s Grace before Christ came into the world lived a Holy Life by God’s Grace.

Let’s take more of a look at the word “all”. In Chapter 15 of Saint Paul’s Letter to the Romans, he writes “I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with {all} knowledge, and able to instruct one another”.

Now I do agree with Saint Paul here, but in context, I do believe that Christ Promise to Saint Peter holds true that the Church of Rome has preserved 100% orthodox Apostolic Doctrine and Tradition. However, to take the word “all” without qualification would be illogical, Cleary the Church of ROme did not have “all knowledge” that would make it equivalent to “God” who is the only one with “all knowledge”. So, in this case, Saint Paul uses the same word “all” but one has to read it in the way it is being meant.

Another example of Saint Paul and “all” is the passage “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive” Now, as for physical death, there are exceptions to Saint Paul’s “All”. For example, Genesis 5:24 clearly indictes that Enoch walked with God and God Took him [Assumed him] thus it appears he did not die a physical death. Elijah also seems to have been “assumed into heaven by God” and did not die a physical death either for we read “As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind” [2 Kings 2:11]. So, here are 2 clear exceptions to Saint Paul’s “all in Adam die”. I can take it further and say that Saint Paul’s “all will be made alive in Christ” also needs qualification, unless you want to posit a doctrine of “universal salvation”????????????

Another use of “all” by Saint Paul. In Romans 11:26 he writes “and thus {all} Israel will be saved” Again, this has to be understood with qualification as clearly some will not be saved, unless again, you are positing some form of a doctrine of “universal salvation” for all Jews.

So, in every case, there are exceptions to the use of the word “all”. The immaculate conception does not contradict anything, for it only means that Mary was saved by God’s Grace in an extraordinary way, yet still saved by God’s Grace, and that Grace was given to her in a special way at the time she was conceived.

Actually, there are examples in scripture of “certain sins” separating one from God. Saint Paul in 1 Timothy 1:18-19 clearly states some have made shipwreck of their faith by rejecting their conscience. The Apostle John writes “If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly” [1 John 5:16-17]. Saint Peter writes “above all, let your love for one another be intense because lover covers a multitude of sins” [1 Peter 4:8]. Saint James writes “My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” [James 5:19-20]. Christ in Saint Matthew’s Gospel states “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come [Mt 12:31-32].

So we clearly have in the NT different types of Sin. In Mt 12:31-32, we see one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is one who refuses to repent and seek forgiveness. The parallel text in Mark 3:29 points to this where we read blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is an eternal sin.

In the case of 1 John 5:16-17, this is not the sin Christ is talking about in Mt 12:31-32 and Mark 3:29. Saint John is writing to a Church and Christian Community and thus in this context, the deadly sin refers to sins that lead to apostasy such as heretical movements who separated themselves from the Apostolic Church or sins that are so serious and continually committed that one lapses back into a state of spiritual death.

The Letters of Saints Peter and James give us another example, for clearly acts of Christian “love” cover a multitude of Sins [not all sins, and of course this fits quite nicely in the Catholic practice of Lent and doing penance]. In fact, Saint James says the Christian act of bringing back as sinner will save his soul and also cover a multitude of sins [why not all, maybe purgatory still????]. Still, individual Christians can be God’s instruments thru which he saves individuals and the act of cooperating with God will cover some sins.

In summary, your notion of Sin is not supported by Sacred Scripture nor is it supported by all of the orthodox Church Fathers who read the same scriptures and came to interpretations 100% different from you and the other members of the FR Protestant brigades here.

“I feel comfortable”

It doesn’t matter how “comfortable” you feel.

Your behavior is wrongful.

The Pope is NOT a political entity.

“We are Christians because we belong to the Church.”

Since the Catholic church started as an extension of the Roman empire and the Caesars, this is to be expected.

I don’t suppose anyone has accused you of being a deep theological thinker with those kindergarten picture posts have they?

I can best explain by using Mother Teresa’s words: “But, unless we have Jesus, we cannot give Him; that is why we need the Eucharist. Spend as much time as possible in front of the Blessed Sacrament and He will fill you with His strength and His power.” http://adorationrocks.com/letter.html

ealgeone: So when Scripture is interpreted to refer to Mary and intercession, it is taken out of context. Of course, that is your reply.<

No that is from a clear reading of the text. No where are we told it is ok to pray/worship/venerate Mary or the saints. I notice you offer no Biblical support for your position.

To pretend to keep itself out of idolatry the RCC has invented three levels of worship/veneration for God, Mary and the saints....totally against all Scripture.

when you're own your knees, you're worshipping someone.

The entire issue of icons and images taken up at 2nd Nicea was due to charges being made by “Islam”, which sound very similar to yours. The use of icons and images is not forbidden.

Exodus 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth."

Lev 26:1 "'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God.

Deut 4:16 :so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman,"

Romans 1:23 "and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures."

I think that answers the 2nd Council of Nicea. Maybe if they'd read the Bible they would have come up with a better reply.

You are mistaken, worshiping them as God [false God] is forbidden.

It may be forbidden, but the RCC still does it.

The idols today are worship of Money, Politics, Economics, etc.

As for Romans 3:23. “all have sinned”, not sure I take it to mean what you mean.

Sin from the greek word...it means to miss the mark..especially God's mark of sinlessness.

By definition, a child under the age of reason “can’t sin” personally, although they like all humanity, have original sin.

You must not have children. By nature they are selfish and have to be instructed on how to behave.

In the context of the passage, Saint Paul was talking to certain Jewish groups who seemed to be elitist and setting themselves up over the Gentiles. This is more of using “all” to describe the condition of the entire human race and their need for redemption.

Mary was saved by God’s Grace and filled with God’s Grace before Christ came into the world lived a Holy Life by God’s Grace.

There isn't any Biblical support to show that Mary was somehow saved by God's grace before Christ came into the world. In Luke Mary admits she was a sinner and was in need of salvation. Her sin sacrifice after the birth of Christ confirms this.

Of all the false teachings of the RCC, this is the whopper of them all.

Let’s take more of a look at the word “all”. In Chapter 15 of Saint Paul’s Letter to the Romans, he writes “I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with {all} knowledge, and able to instruct one another”. Now I do agree with Saint Paul here, but in context, I do believe that Christ Promise to Saint Peter holds true that the Church of Rome has preserved 100% orthodox Apostolic Doctrine and Tradition.

Disagree: the RCC has not kept the promise. They have distorted it as being shown here.

However, to take the word “all” without qualification would be illogical, Cleary the Church of ROme did not have “all knowledge” that would make it equivalent to “God” who is the only one with “all knowledge”. So, in this case, Saint Paul uses the same word “all” but one has to read it in the way it is being meant.

Another example of Saint Paul and “all” is the passage “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive” Now, as for physical death, there are exceptions to Saint Paul’s “All”. For example, Genesis 5:24 clearly indictes that Enoch walked with God and God Took him [Assumed him] thus it appears he did not die a physical death. Elijah also seems to have been “assumed into heaven by God” and did not die a physical death either for we read “As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind” [2 Kings 2:11]. So, here are 2 clear exceptions to Saint Paul’s “all in Adam die”.

You do understand there are two deaths...a physical death and a spiritual death. Which one would the context of the verses, and with this understanding, mean for these two? That they would not face a spiritual death due to their faith.

I can take it further and say that Saint Paul’s “all will be made alive in Christ” also needs qualification, unless you want to posit a doctrine of “universal salvation”????????????

For all of those who believe in Christ...yes, they will be made alive in Christ. Again, a clear simple understanding of the New Testament.

Another use of “all” by Saint Paul. In Romans 11:26 he writes “and thus {all} Israel will be saved” Again, this has to be understood with qualification as clearly some will not be saved, unless again, you are positing some form of a doctrine of “universal salvation” for all Jews. So, in every case, there are exceptions to the use of the word “all”.

The immaculate conception does not contradict anything, for it only means that Mary was saved by God’s Grace in an extraordinary way, yet still saved by God’s Grace, and that Grace was given to her in a special way at the time she was conceived.

Again, the immaculate conception would contradict all of Paul's writings in Romans and the OT and NT understanding of sin and how one comes to have acceptance by God and that is through faith. Mary cannot have faith as a child in the womb. That is totally against any scripture and you cannot show in the Bible where this notion is supported and that is apostacy.

In summary, your notion of Sin is not supported by Sacred Scripture nor is it supported by all of the orthodox Church Fathers who read the same scriptures and came to interpretations 100% different from you and the other members of the FR Protestant brigades here.

With all due respect, I'm not sure your understanding of sin is Biblical. It may jive with what the RCC teaches, but it is not what the Bible teaches.

Your so called “mother Theresa” didn’t much care what religion you were.

"If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are. ... What God is in your mind you must accept" (from Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work , by Desmond Doig, p. 156, as quoted by Dave Hunt, Global Peace and the Rise of Antichrist , p. 149).<

It was obviously all the same to her.

LOL Nice try at obfuscation. Now, about that “queen of heaven” nonsense and praying to those so called “saints” and all the pagan paraphernalia, rituals, and vestments.

Justify all you want. It’s still pride rather than humility.

That’s because Roman Catholics REEEALLY don’t care what you believe about God, just so long as you kiss the Pope’s ring.

you wrote: >“When you teach the following you achieve cult status:”< None of the things you list have anything to do with “cult status”:

“1)worshipping/praying to Mary and that she was sinless in direct contradiction of scripture which says all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...you’re a cult”

Mary is not worshipped. Asking for her intercession is not the hallmark of a cult. Also, her sinlessness is not in contradiction of scripture (we understand the hyperbole in St. Paul’s writings). Since her sinlessness is from Christ it has nothing to do with a cult.

when you're own your knees before someone, it's worship. btw...that's a catholic priest in the photo in his knees before a statue of Mary.

>“2)Mary plays a role in our salvation”< Made clear by scripture. She too would be pierced after all. All she did was be of service and remains so.

She was pierced as any mom would be by the death of their son. Mary did not hang and die on the cross for us. Only Christ can save us.

>“3)when you declare you have to believe BOTH scripture and tradition”< St. Paul said as much.

Where? Need the verse.

“4)when you teach that only a priest can explain the Scriptures” That is not a Catholic teaching. The teaching is that the Church and her tradition explain scripture. If you’re going to attack Catholic beliefs wouldn’t help if you actually knew what those beliefs are? Otherwise you sound like a mindless cult member lashing out blindly.

CCC 939, "Helped by the priests, their co-workers, and by the deacons, the bishops have the duty of authentically teaching the faith, celebrating divine worship, above all the Eucharist, and guiding their Churches as true pastors. Their responsibility also includes concern for all the Churches, with and under the Pope.“

CCC 883, "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.“

however, the Bible notes the following:

Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

>“5)when you teach it’s ok to have relics, statues of saints, mary, etc,”< They are okay. Next!

Exodus 20:4 would disagree with you, but you hang onto the council of nicea instead.

>“6)when you assign to mary titles such as co-redemtrix and mediatrix and mediatrix of all graces...you’re a cult.”< No, you’re merely awarding titles that reflect how she served God.

I'm not calling her those things....the RCC is.

Mediatrix of All Graces is a special Marian title that some Roman Catholics give to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the mother of Jesus Christ, encompassing the belief that all the graces and blessings that her son gives come through her.

This attributes to her a role more extensive than the role of mediation or intercession attributed to her.

The RCC isn't ready to declare this as dogma....yet.

>“7) when you teach that as no man goes to the Father but through Christ, so no man goes to Christ but by His mother, you’re a cult. The first part of this is ok. It’s the second part that’s cult territory.”<

Once again you invent a teaching that doesn’t actually exist and try to pass it off as a Catholic teaching.

"Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ. Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother." (Vatican Website: Encyclical of Pope Leo 13th on the Rosary, Octobri Mense, Pope Leo 13th, 1903-1914)

>8) when you teach that Mary did not lay aside her salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation....you’re a cult.<

Mary always remained true to her Son. She will always intercede for us. There’s nothing cult like about that or a belief in it.

That's the best you've got on this one? Really? Again, non-biblical and cultish all at the same time.

>“and we haven’t even talked about indulgences, penance, having to confess to a priest, etc.”<

None of those things is cult like either. Confession to a priest is right out of John 20:19-23.

says nothing about people having to come to Peter and ask for forgiveness.

>“Hey...this could be a Jeff Foxworthy r

outine.”<

Only you’re the butt of the joke.

can't even come up with your own material!

>“The burden is on the Roman Catholic Church to show sound Biblical support for these false teachings....”<

No. Since the Protestant sects came more than 1400 years later than Catholics it is the burden of those sects to prove that Catholic beliefs are false to begin with.

length of time in error of the RCC is nothing to brag about. false teaching has been around as early as Genesis 3....so I wouldn't brag about being in error for 1400 years.

>“which they cannot. Without having tradition to appeal to, these false teachings cannot be justified by reading the Word and keeping the text in context.”<

That’s a false claim. Take for instance confession. It’s right there in John 20:19-23.

Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.

Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.

Source: Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Second Vatican Council 11-18-1965

nope...says nothing about confession, penance, indulgences, etc in John 20:19-23. Read the verse in the context of the NT and understand how sins are forgiven...hint...it's through the message of the Gospel Peter and the boys were preaching.

Protestants sects created cults.

Hey...this was fun.