How does a Catholic increase the chance of getting into Heaven?

[Tanner9188]

That’s not true. I challenge you to provide me with evidence that the Church actually sold, for money, indulgences at any time. Keep in mind that I’m not talking about a rogue Priest, but the Church as a whole.

Hi Erik, Of course you have to add the conditional statement of the “Church as a whole”. St Peters basilica is one example of a rogue priest; that was in full view of the hierarchy; as the article explains the Council of Trent banned and outlawed the selling of indulgences (1567), which is proof of a works-based system of religion IMO. Even if it repeating the rosary 10 times for the forgiveness of a venial sin.

Based on your criteria we can all safely say the scandals w/in the priesthood concerning sexual abuse would not apply to “Church as a whole”. Even though, the people at the top know what was going on; but whats a blind eye on receiving money for forgiveness?

Here is a somewhat neutral article on the history; it does have a pro-Catholic slant IMO.

conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/biblical-evidence-for-indulgences-and-the-history-surrounding-their-abuse/

Anyway; people are sinful and no church escapes the sins of this world because they are made of men.

 

[Tanner9188]

Noone is going back in time, Tanner, but your and my sins did put Jesus up there. So, no matter how you look at it, every time you commit a sin it still puts Jesus on the cross. Whether you attempt to make it look like “Groundhog Day” or something else, every sin you commit put Him up there. If you argue with this then you are denying the sacrifice.

Romans 6:10 “10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.”

The reality is my sins, all of them, were paid before I was born. He was sacrificed one time for all time, which is one reason He sits at the right hand of the Father to make intercession on behalf of His own. How many and who makes intercession for you? All my sins were nailed to the cross one time; no more and no less. Again your logic is flawed by your misunderstanding of the purpose and reality of the cross. I would just assume kill myself, then to continually put my Lord on a cross over and over again.

1 Peter 3:18 “For Christ also died for sins once for all, {the} just for {the} unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;”

1Peter 2:24 He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

1 john 2:2 He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for {those of} the whole world.

1 John 3:5 He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin

We could go on and on, but to no end.

 

[Tanner9188]

This is my last day in this thread; so if anyone has any comments, question, rebuttals, insults or whatever else; then get them in today. Besides this is way off the original topic anyway.

 

[erikd]

Hi Erik, Of course you have to add the conditional statement of the “Church as a whole”. St Peters basilica is one example of a rogue priest; that was in full view of the hierarchy; as the article explains the Council of Trent banned and outlawed the selling of indulgences (1567), which is proof of a works-based system of religion IMO. Even if it repeating the rosary 10 times for the forgiveness of a venial sin.

Based on your criteria we can all safely say the scandals w/in the priesthood concerning sexual abuse would not apply to “Church as a whole”. Even though, the people at the top know what was going on; but whats a blind eye on receiving money for forgiveness?

Here is a somewhat neutral article on the history; it does have a pro-Catholic slant IMO.

conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/biblical-evidence-for-indulgences-and-the-history-surrounding-their-abuse/

Anyway; people are sinful and no church escapes the sins of this world because they are made of men.

Tanner:

I would never debate that abuses have been made in this area, that is a factual matter of history. I did, however, correctly point out that the Church as a whole never sold indulgences for money, that is, as you stated, an abuse of power. If that is a reason to refute the Catholic Church than we also need to do the following:

1: Close down every law enforcement agency that has ever abused power by rogue police officers. Have you ever heard of police abuses?

2: Close down every school that was affiliated with a teacher who, in some way, abused his / her students. Do you know of any such schools?

3: Close down every protestant denomination where its preachers have been known to either funnel money through their ministry or sleep with their secretaries. Do you know of any such institutions?

Let’s get started on that first and then we’ll see what we’re left with. And you accuse me of having false logic?

 

[erikd]

Romans 6:10 “10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.”

The reality is my sins, all of them, were paid before I was born. He was sacrificed one time for all time, which is one reason He sits at the right hand of the Father to make intercession on behalf of His own. How many and who makes intercession for you? All my sins were nailed to the cross one time; no more and no less. Again your logic is flawed by your misunderstanding of the purpose and reality of the cross. I would just assume kill myself, then to continually put my Lord on a cross over and over again.

1 Peter 3:18 “For Christ also died for sins once for all, {the} just for {the} unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;”

1Peter 2:24 He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

1 john 2:2 He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for {those of} the whole world.

1 John 3:5 He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin

We could go on and on, but to no end.

Tanner:

You’re forgetting about free will. You still have it, despite the crucifixion. Don’t you? If you were completely blameless, by the grace of God, would that not mean that Christ was not hung up on the cross for you? If you are not blameless, does that not mean that every sin you have and will commit requires that payment on the cross? Would not that penalty be negated if you were blameless? We are all to blame for Christ bloody sacrifice, every time we sin. Our free will allows us the opportunity to not sin. Have you still got your free will?

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner:

I would never debate that abuses have been made in this area, that is a factual matter of history. I did, however, correctly point out that the Church as a whole never sold indulgences for money, that is, as you stated, an abuse of power. If that is a reason to refute the Catholic Church than we also need to do the following:

1: Close down every law enforcement agency that has ever abused power by rogue police officers. Have you ever heard of police abuses?

2: Close down every school that was affiliated with a teacher who, in some way, abused his / her students. Do you know of any such schools?

3: Close down every protestant denomination where its preachers have been known to either funnel money through their ministry or sleep with their secretaries. Do you know of any such institutions?

Let’s get started on that first and then we’ll see what we’re left with. And you accuse me of having false logic?

No one said anything about closing something down??? How would one close the RCC; only God alone could do that IMO. At least when some non-Catholic religion gets exposed; they are out of business and often in jail; you don’t have an institution to hide behind, which protects the guilty at the expense of the innocent and cost millions, if not billions of dollars, to defend at the expense of the laity. I really don’t care to go further down this road; it has been going on for centuries in one form or fashion and will continue until the end of time IMO.

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner:

You’re forgetting about free will. You still have it, despite the crucifixion. Don’t you? If you were completely blameless, by the grace of God, would that not mean that Christ was not hung up on the cross for you? If you are not blameless, does that not mean that every sin you have and will commit requires that payment on the cross? Would not that penalty be negated if you were blameless? We are all to blame for Christ bloody sacrifice, every time we sin. Our free will allows us the opportunity to not sin. Have you still got your free will?

**The only free-will I have is to sin; like the rest of mankind and ultimately God’s sovereignty overrides all human free-will and that is a good thing because there is coming a day when His restraining grace will be removed. If you look at our own country you can see it happening; God removing His restraining grace.

Personally; IMO if not for the concept of purgatory, then the system would fall apart. It has served the Church well for many many years.**

 

[erikd]

**The only free-will I have is to sin; like the rest of mankind and ultimately God’s sovereignty overrides all human free-will and that is a good thing because there is coming a day when His restraining grace will be removed. If you look at our own country you can see it happening; God removing His restraining grace.

Personally; IMO if not for the concept of purgatory, then the system would fall apart. It has served the Church well for many many years.**

Tanner:

Are you saying that God will take free will away from us?

You and I actually do agree on one thing: This country has had some major fundamental problems since January of this year.

 

[CentralFLJames]

**According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.” The Catechism continues in paragraph 1367:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

I understand what it is; but no matter how it is spun; it is resacrificing. Just as veneration is a form of worship IMO and what the catechism states.**

Sorry, but God does not limit truth and the legitimacy of His Church to the cerebral limits of Tanner’s IQ level. The Church is light years beyond your personal theology Tanner.

Christ’s work on the Cross gained unlimited merit and grace before The Father to make it possible to pay for every single sin every committed in history or into the future. Christ WAY over paid. A single drop of precious divine blood would be sufficient to gain everyone the right for heaven. What you don’t understand is that the gift of GRACE MUST BE ALLOCATED, APPORTIONED AND CLAIMED. Given that Christ died for us 2,000 years ago how does TANNER get His grace or as you all say how do you “get covered in Christ’s blood”??? Without the sacrament of The Church through the mass Tanner has NO WAY to gain access to Christ’s blood. In fact you keep slandering His Church here and keep wounding Christ by attacking His Body and His Bride. It is YOU Tanner who is re-sacrificing Christ daily in these forums through ignorance.

You must come to understand that The Church is the beginning of the Kingdom of God on Earth. It is a supernatural bridge from earth to heaven through Christ. In that aspect The Church is mystical and extends past mere temporal limits - it is present in Eternity. The Church is a type of Arc on a course to the Promised Land in the same way that Noah’s Arc was a refuge against the the Deluge. Through The Church we can all put ourselves in the same instant of time that Christ was on the Cross and join with His Suffering (through our binding to His death through the baptismal waters). This is how grace is allocated. Can you see now why its impossible to gain grace outside of the Catholic Church? We do not re-sacrifice Christ - we re-enter into that one same sacrifice in a memorial offering that each and every time allocates grace to those who are in a spiritual state to receive it. Ironically, since Protestants are baptised they may receive some of this grace each and every time we Catholics say a mass (which is done 24/7 all around the world). Who do you think has been floating your boat all this time Tanner? The Catholic Church - but you are not getting the full benefit by standing outside The Church out in the rain. And if you have a single unforgiven mortal sin you GET NOTHING salvific grace wise and only actual grace which is probably what brought you here to learn the truth. This sort of grace is universal and is what calls one to God to repent and convert and enter His Catholic Church.

So, summarizing - Catholics re-present through a timeless memorial the same one eternal sacrifice of Christ to allocate grace to The Church and to the world at large. There is no other channel of grace except through Christ’s Church just as there was no other way to escape the Deluge except through Noah’s Arc. We must Die With Christ daily so that we can Live in Christ. I know it sounds all sort of mystical and mysterious - and it is. But the pascal mystery is well beyond the human capacity to fully understand. We “just do it” since we were told by Christ to “do this in memory of me” and we trust Him.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

**
Who were the earliest church fathers? I will go with them; you go against them…take you path; I have choosen mine and I’m sticking to the narrow way.

Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19) as were the other Apostles, the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere does Scripture declare that Peter was in authority over the other apostles, or over the Church (having primacy)…

Also, nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “imposed” onto verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23). For the Apostles are the messengers of the message that saves, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Believe Scripture or believe it not; I choose to believe Scripture in it entirety and set it above all else in matters of faith and practice.

God bless!**

The only narrow path you are on here Tanner is on a narrow minded path that is limited by your own stubborness and by the neo-Christian beliefs somone water-boarded into your cranium at an early age so you can’t hear or see anything else.

Tanner: Does Scripture declare that Peter was in authority over the other apostles, or over the Church (having primacy?

Answer: Does Scripture declare that scripture is inerrant or tell us what constitutes “Scripture” or that it is the only source of Divine Revelation? NO it does not.

But if you want ONLY scriptural evidence for Peter’s authority and supremacy you could never disprove the evidence presented in these dozens of verses:

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

You keep trying to tell us what is in scripture and what is not in scripture but you never can explain why you take scripture as the only source of divine revelation. As we have said to you many times - SCRIPTURE REFUTES “BY SCRIPTURE ALONE” and tells us we must follow the HANDED DOWN apostolic teachings and traditions. We do that why don’t you? No where in scripture does it tell us that it is the single authority and even if it was implicit somwhere no where does it tell us that Tanner is infallable and the one who knows how to read and interpret it. Why would anyone listen to you? What is YOUR pedigree? Why do you try to force others to your point of view when the Holy Spirit and natural reason has told us something completely opposite to what you say?

And again you are simply “wrong” about apostolic succession not being present in the bible. There many cases of it present in the physical laying on of hands and the apostolic ordinations that Catholics have been doing for 2,000 years ever since.

See here:
scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Do you believe Isiah 22:22 refers to Peter?

This principally refers to Christ - the cross is the key to heaven that was placed on Christ’s shoulder and which gives Him the authority to open all seals and all doors (ref. Revelation). Authority is also assignable - and Christ gave Peter the authority to speak for Him on earth till He returns. And Peter can pass on that authority since that authority is eternal until revoked.

All the apostles were given the key; what do you think the key might symbolize, putting aside what you have been taught? What other possibility?

This is inaccurate. The apostles were blown on to give them a God Breathed ability to speak in Christ’s name (and to write scripture) to spread The Good News and to forgive Sins. But Peter’s authority is prime and is superior to all others. Recall it is Peter who settles ALL doctrinal matters (Baptism for the Gentiles, eating of forbidden foods, no need to circumcised etc.). No one ever dares countermand Peter’s decisions - they are final.

The concept of “binding and loosing” is taught in the Bible in Matthew 16:19:

In this verse, Jesus is speaking directly to the apostle Peter and indirectly to the other apostles.

NO WHERE in that verse does Jesus infer anyone other than Peter, You need to reacquaint yourself with the rules of grammar since not a single time does Jesus use the word “you” outside of a context of speaking to Peter. If Satan or Simon Magus or Herod was loitering in the general area would Jesus’ words apply to them too? Please, you need to jettison the scriptural alchemy. You can’t just invent new meaning to the clear text to conform it to what you want to believe. :tsktsk:

Jesus’ words meant that Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, that he would have general authority symbolized by the possession of the keys, and that preaching the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers and shutting it against unbelievers.

Bologna. This is what Tanner wants to project and fantasize to make it conform to your own neo-Christian beliefs.

Peter and the other disciples were to continue Christ’s work on earth in preaching the gospel and declaring God’s will to men, and they were armed with the same authority as He possessed.

This is opinionated conjecture that can not be substantiated. We know from apostolic tradition that they all had the authority to teach the good news but that is not the same thing as authority equal to Peter’s.

The apostles do not usurp Christ’s lordship and authority over individual believers and their eternal destiny, but they do exercise the authority to discipline and, if necessary, excommunicate disobedient church members.

Are you claiming that The Catholic Church by being obedient to Christ somehow usurps Christ’s lordship over individual believers? The apostles were given an explicit authority to bind and loose sins - that means that an apostle COULD bind “a believer” to his sins if the apostle thought the sinner who’s sinful actions belie his being “a believer” was insincere in repentance. Thus the apostole & his successors IS BEING OBEDIENT to Christ by using his own judgement in the matter just as Christ commanded and willed.

Wake up and smell the incense my friend:
*1 Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! *

Christ in heaven ratifies what is done in His name and in obedience to His Word on earth.

And what is your point?

The mechanism is irrelevant - the authority is what is relevant. Christ authorized ONLY his apostoles and their successors to do His will in forgiving sins and is in communion with them. HE DOES NOT GIVE INDIVIDUALS THE ABILITY TO FORGIVE THEIR OWN SINS.

Remember Peter denied Christ 3 times; this is Jesus restoring Peter; how do the apostles feed the sheep? By delivering the gospel; those who reject are bound and those who accept are loosed…very simple and not even complicated.

That Peter sinned is irrelevant. All the apostles sinned.
Feeding through the gospel is one way to feed but the apostles also feed by consecrating the Eucharist and feeding The Flock with the Bread of Life and by their life example of holiness and being Christ Like.

What’s so complicated about that?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

There is no evidence that Peter and Paul ever evangelized together; especially in Rome

No evidence???

*“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178). *

In His letters to the Romans or any other epistle; he [Paul] never once mentions Peter; had he been around or was someplace to where Paul was writing; Paul would have mentioned him by name. Are there any other statements fro ECf’s concerning Peter in Rome that are less than 130 years old?

Yes we have evidence before 130 years old. How about 110 years - see Ignatious. But of course now you will want to “see it in the bible” right?

And have you any clue about what life was like in the early Church? Do you read any history at all? Don’t you think it would have been absolutely foolish for Paul to blow Peter’s cover that he, as leader of the Christian Church was already in Rome teaching well before His own arrival? Do you really think Paul was so stupid in his letter to the Roman’s to put the name of the well known Peter and risk tipping off his presence if that letter fell into the legions of Roman & Jewish enemies who were looking to murder as many of the Christian leadership they could get their hands on? Come on use some common sense.

**Peters authority came from God; yes. Then Peters authority from God was given away to someone else? who? Were they able to perform Miracles, signs and wonders? Then, who was the next person? Did they posess the power God gave to all the apostles? You see the fallacies here. It is a serious fallacy because it changes the message and puts God authority into Peter, which is fine, but for Peter to pass it along; he would need God’s permission and we know is not in Scripture.
**
What bizarre logic. Can you apply that to your own theology and give us a single sign and wonder that a single Reformer was appointed the Divine Authority to rebel against His Church? Why the double standard?

The Holy Spirit only used signs and wonders predominantly in the Apostolic Age to get the Church bootstrapped and started. God’s preference is clearly to optimize a believers faith and spiritual perfection by them NOT having to see signs and wonders for some higher spiritual purpose but to Love God out of more pure motives than being wooed and impressed by the sparkly things. Would you want to marry a woman who only liked you for being able to pull a rabbit out of hat but not for your true self?

John 20:29 Blessed are those who haven’t seen me but believe.
Tanner9188;5509400:

Appointing someone as minister of the gospel is one thing, but giving apostolic power w/o God’s permission is not Scriptural and not possible unless God said it and He did not. Today’s Pope or any other Pope cannot perform miracles, signs and wonders for a reason; so that pretty much kills that illogical and scriptural theory dead as dead. Let me know what the DNA evidence reveals; oh that’s right, there is nothing to compare it to; so we really don’t know, but it sure adds to the myths.

You need to go back and read how that same apostolic authority was passed on by the apostles through laying on of hands to replace Judas with Mathias and to add Timothy and others. This IS a divine God Breathed authority ALREADY given through the authority of loosing and binding and this authority extends forever to all their successors until God revokes it or returns again.

As for no current signs and wonders – this is YOUR criteria not Gods. And I suppose you would not accept the fact that in spite of some bad leaders and massive persecution by enemies of God The Catholic Church with no standing army of its own has managed to outlive and overcome EVERY ancient enemy as nations and empires have come and gone every few hundreds years? You don’t consider that a miracle?

Keys don’t reference an office in Scripture, maybe in some false religion, but not in scripture. What office and what proof of an office can you present?

Hello??? The Apostolic Office of course. It’s self evident since you are still (mis)quoting the Catholic Bible that came into existence through the apostolic authority of The Catholic Church 1400 years before Luther and the Reformers were even a twinkle in Satan’s eyes. Why do you hold the Protestant bible so sacred if you don’t hold the office of the apostles and the Catholic Church as valid? That seems irrational to me.

Little “c” church; not big “RCC” Church; which is the local church that makes up the “body of Christ”.

Speculative opinion.

Also keep in mind that Peter was rebuked by Paul for leading people astray and Jesus said “get behind me Satan” in reference to Peter. IMO Peter was the most outgoing and obnoxious (cutting of the ear of the Pharisees assistant) of the 12 and needed more attention from Christ. …

Paul was the real rock of the bunch; he suffered and suffered and suffered, but look at the results God wrought through him; much greater than Peter IMO.

Ho-boy - now Paul, who was not even present when Jesus told Peter that he was Rock is now the Rock. Uhm, Tanner ol boy, you have a few loose one’s rolling around upstairs.

[cont]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[from prior]

By the way, the name Peter is mentioned 154 times and Paul is mentioned 160 times. By that silly standard; Paul is the “King Apostle” - That’s all foolishness.
That’s a shame for the Bible has the gospel; the message of salvation and is great for instruction in faith and practice.

You don’t count so well. Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles** combined **are only mentioned 130 times. So its even more foolish to miscount than it is is call that metric foolish while trying to use it.

What is a shame is that the Protestant Bible is a tithe lite (missing 7 books) and would be missing 5 or so NT books had Luther had his way.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - this actual verse you are paraphrasing really says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

But what is most ironic is that in Titus 3:8 - good deeds (i.e. works) are also “profitable” to men. But as we know all Protestants abhor works (except those that criticize Catholics) so we know that the word “profitable” cannot mean “exclusive” when applied to scripture - certianly not to the exclusion of works.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

So you time travel literally? Celebrating my birthday; I don’t re-present a bloodless birth from my mother; what a bad analogy. Furthermore; who ate the flesh and drank the blood at the cross? No one. So why would you go back to the cross and then do something no one else did. Doesn’t matter the tabernacle made with hands is not Biblical and neither is the “leviticle-style” priesthood; none of that is in the NT and if were meant to be; then it would be clearly defined by Jesus Himself IMO.

Not exactly - The Church simply steps out of time into the timelessness of Eternity through prayer and the sacrifice of the Mass. Remember as The Body of Christ The Church is given a mysterious mystical and supernatural character - God does this. So we actually do place ourselves right there at Calvary at the foot of the Cross with Christ.

Who ate the flesh and drank the blood at the cross? Good question - the apostles did - but they entered into that same mystical presence at the last supper BEFORE Christ was actually crucified in the same way we step back into it. You need to come to understand that in Eternity there is no concept of time - past, present, future become One Now and come to appreciate that mystery of The Church as the Body of Christ is a real mystical sense - not just a metaphorical sense.

Don’t get so hung up on the Tabernacle - its just a temporary repository for surplus Eucharist used for last rites and for emergencies for when a priest is not available to confect the sacraments in a benediction service and for adoration. It’s not substantially any different than a chalice or platter contained within the walls of the upper-room used to handle the consecrated Body and Blood at the Last Supper. The more profound concept here is realizing that WE ARE ALL TABERNACLES of CHRIST when we receive the Eucharist in Mass. The Soul is where The Trinity takes residence in all baptised Christians who are free of mortal sin - so we are ALL a temple of The Lord if we stay in grace. This is why Catholics insist on the dignity of every human being since each natural human has the capacity to be Christlike and deserving of the higest respect and dignity no matter how low their station in this life.

*1 Cor 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is
in you, whom you have received from God? *

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Hi Erik, Of course you have to add the conditional statement of the “Church as a whole”. St Peters basilica is one example of a rogue priest; that was in full view of the hierarchy; as the article explains the Council of Trent banned and outlawed the selling of indulgences (1567), which is proof of a works-based system of religion IMO.

There were some abuses - no question about it. But the Church never had a policy requiring a fee for indulgences. Most Catholics did simple mass offerings (free) or prayers and penance - especially during special feast days (such as All Souls Day) to gain their indulgences or did pilgrimages to special Holy places. But the bible is VERY CLEAR that alms giving to God is HIGHLY pleasing to God as is fasting and prayer etc.

Here is an example of alms giving and many prayers. I don’t see anyone admonishing Cornelius for saying too many prayers or giving alms; and clearly somone had to see it in order to record it in the gospel.

*Acts 10:1-2 Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and **gave many alms **to the Jewish people and **prayed to God continually. ***

Here are a lot of myths about indulgences than can be debunked easily:

• Myth 1: A person can buy his way out of hell with indulgences.

This charge is without foundation. Since indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that fact. The only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive. After death, one’s eternal fate is set (Heb. 9:27).

• Myth 2: A person can buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.

The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, “[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power.”

• Myth 3: A person can “buy forgiveness” with indulgences.

The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven” (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1, emphasis added). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

• **Myth 4: Indulgences were invented as a means for the Church to raise money. **

Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.

• Myth 5: An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.

The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less in a specific person’s case.

• Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.

The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

• Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “*t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, alms-giving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.”

Even if it repeating the rosary 10 times for the forgiveness of a venial sin.

Actually a simple prayer such as The Lord’s prayer offered with a sincere desire to repent and not repeat that sin is sufficient to be forgiven of venial sins. But if we want to pray the rosary 10 times - once perhaps for each person we petition God to help is that bad??? Is is better to not pray too much for others? Does the bible limit us on how often we can pray to God??? Or are you perhaps jealous that others want to talk to God more often and more fervently that you do?

James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed.

Would you call The Lord’s Prayer as taught by Christ himself as a “Work”?
Do you recall the line “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”. Does praying this prayer asking God for forgivness become a disallowed work in your personal theology???

Based on your criteria we can all safely say the scandals w/in the priesthood concerning sexual abuse would not apply to “Church as a whole”. Even though, the people at the top know what was going on; but whats a blind eye on receiving money for forgiveness?

That was the problem the few US bishops used poor judgement in trying to handle the problem locally and not elevating it to all their peers and to the pope. They honestly did not see the larger scope of the problem since they were each all looking only at their own diocese and trying to preserve the reputations of some of the priests who often were being held up to false and unsubstantiated charges by those who hated the Church. The good news is the Pope took the US bishops to the proverbial woodshed over this and now the Catholic Church has ZERO tolerance and gets the civil law involved at the first evidence of a problem. Most of these abuses were caused by homosexual priests who were known to have homosexual proclivities but has sworn an oath of celibacy - but broke their oaths. NOW the Catholic Church will not permit any homosexual to be ordained period.

James*

 

[elvisman]

No one said anything about closing something down??? How would one close the RCC; only God alone could do that IMO. At least when some non-Catholic religion gets exposed; they are out of business and often in jail; you don’t have an institution to hide behind, which protects the guilty at the expense of the innocent and cost millions, if not billions of dollars, to defend at the expense of the laity. I really don’t care to go further down this road; it has been going on for centuries in one form or fashion and will continue until the end of time IMO.

The fact that you don’t understand Purgatory doesn’t make it false. It simply means that you don’t get it.

1 Cor. 3:12-15, Matt. 18:32-34 and Matt. 12:32 ALL point to the reality of a final purgation. It seems that you and many Protestants choose to believe that impure things can enter heaven - even though says that nothing unclean will enter (Rev. 21:27).

Perhaps, you agree with Luther’s false notion that “snow-covered dunghills” can enter heaven because Jesus righteousness “covers” our filth and somehow fools God. God MAKES us righteous and pure before entering, thus the purgation spoken of in the Scriptures.

Tell me something, Tanner:
The Early Church fathers taught the Doctrine of Purgatory, shown in writings as far back as the 2nd century. Men like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Abercius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan and Augustine - ALL respected by Protestant theologians.

What was their motive for teaching this? The Church at the time was being persecuted and was FAR from the giant, rich entity you perceive it to be.

So, what was their motive?

 

[CentralFLJames]

The reality is my sins, all of them, were paid before I was born. He was sacrificed one time for all time, which is one reason He sits at the right hand of the Father to make intercession on behalf of His own. How many and who makes intercession for you? All my sins were nailed to the cross one time; no more and no less. Again your logic is flawed by your misunderstanding of the purpose and reality of the cross. I would just assume kill myself, then to continually put my Lord on a cross over and over again.

The reality is NONE of what Christ did on the cross has any merit to you UNLESS YOU accept ALL of Christ’s teachings (including obedience to not sin) AND** REPENT**.

That latter bit is what a lot of Protestants seem to forget - one must repent - not only on initial conversion before baptism BUT ALSO for EVERY single major sin one commits after baptism. One must allocate the grace won on the cross by REPENTING and staying in a “right relationship” with Christ.

Don’t kill yourself over the idea of putting Christ on the cross over and over again. But you are going to wish you were never born when you see the size of the millstone that is put around your neck for teaching false doctrines if you don’t repent for every single mortal sin you have ever committed (e.g. fornication, adultery, abortion, serious theft, lust and sins against purity [masturbation], slander and calumny etc.). That repentance requires either a perfect contrition (which requires supernatural grace) or sacramental confession - which only an apostolic priest has the authority to perform.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

**The only free-will I have is to sin; like the rest of mankind and ultimately God’s sovereignty overrides all human free-will and that is a good thing because there is coming a day when His restraining grace will be removed. If you look at our own country you can see it happening; God removing His restraining grace.

Personally; IMO if not for the concept of purgatory, then the system would fall apart. It has served the Church well for many many years.**

This is wrong. You also have the freewill to love God and your neighbor and obey His commandments and those who God appoints as His representatives. You are not a slave to grace - you must cooperate with it or you can reject it.

No one is damned unless he wants to be and through his own choice. Likewise no one is saved unless he wants to be and strives to stay in Christ’s grace - praying daily and confessing one’s sins when they fail their tests that The Lord will give and trying again and again to persevere.

James

 

[holy_moly]

Everyone here knows this is true. I do not think they make money on indulgences anymore; but they have found other creative and ungodly (IMO) ways of getting money. It is all around me here and sickens me to know they are raising money from beer and gambling. I don’t recall anyone in the gospel trying to make sordid gains that Jesus ever approved of; do you?
I’m okay with the fish frys. Just so everyone knows, I will have a new roof on our house and we selected a Catholic contractor to do the job. How much Catholic; I don’t really know.

interestng… I’ve never belonged to a Catholic church that made money from beer & gambling

 

[CentralFLJames]

interestng… I’ve never belonged to a Catholic church that made money from beer & gambling

Oh, I suspect he has seen a few Catholic Parish fall festivals where they have 2 days out of the year where they try to raise some money to offset the costs of the catholic school tuition by selling amusement ride tickets, food and tickets to ‘games of chance’ (whack a mole, crazy dice, and mouse-roulette). I guess I can see how somone might get hooked on playing all night at a $1 a game chance to win and pool enough “prize coupons” with one’s friends to exchange it for one of those cute stuffed animals or goofy looking hats or t-shirts.

Some of these festivals also sell some 12 oz 3.2% alcohol beers to adults along with the hot-dogs and hamburgers. So I suppose its possible some real lightweight might abuse that privilege and get looped on the the typical 2 or 3 beers one might have with their meal and get wild on the Ferris wheel or something.

Oh yeah, there’s the car raffle too! I suppose the suggested $5 donation for the raffle tickets for the donated car drawing most have might be considered by some to be gambling rather than a charitable donation and entertainment. But these are the same sort of people who wouldn’t think twice about going to get a free breakfast for agreeing to listen to a 45 minute interval-ownership vacation unit sales-pitch then sneaking out the back door after breakfast to powder the salesmen.

Oh - there’s one more thing. The weekly bingo cards at $1 per card per game for a chance to win $50 might be a serious gambling problem for our senior citizens who might not see it as just an opportunity to donate to help defer Church expenses and for an opportunity to socialize with friends and get free coffee and snacks.

Yup I guess I can see how evil all this is and how this is all leading people to hell…

In retrospect, I suppose we should take bingo, beer, hot-dogs and donuts off the list of things Catholics do to gain salvation but roll it all up into “alms giving”.

James