Protestants, did Jesus Christ gave us a Church with authority?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you believe that the church before the Protestant Reformation was without fault?
Members were sinners. Church members can make mistakes and they sin. Members of the Church were impeccable even bishops or priest.

The Church teaching office on faith and morals before the Reformation was without any error.

You confused impeccability and infallibility.
 
Do you believe that the church before the Protestant Reformation was without fault?
Morally, yes; doctrinally no. As Bishop Sheen wrote, the Reformation reformed doctrine when it was morals that needed reforming.
BTW, just because we believe the Catholic Church can’t teach error does not mean we believe it’s leader are without sin. The idea of some perfect church is an illusion (just read the NT).
 
Members were sinners. The Church teaching office on faith and morals before the Reformation was without any error.
Was it right and of Christ the way indulgences were sold to the people during this people? Did not the way this was done have the highest approval in the church i.e. the pope?
 
Was it right and of Christ the way indulgences were sold to the people during this people?
The selling of indulgence was never permitted by the Catholic Church. It was against the Church Law to do so. When there were abuses brought up, the Council of Trent condemned the selling of indulgence.
Did not the way this was done have the highest approval in the church i.e. the pope?
Read this article by Jimmy Akin:

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

This is a common misunderstanding, one that anti-Catholic commentators take advantage of, relying on the ignorance of both Catholics and non-Catholics. But the 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 norm 1). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

Myth 4: Indulgences were invented to money for the Church.

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 around 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, almsgiving 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."
 
The selling of indulgence was never permitted by the Catholic Church. It was against the Church Law to do so. When there were abuses brought up, the Council of Trent condemned the selling of indulgence.

Read this article by Jimmy Akin:

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

This is a common misunderstanding, one that anti-Catholic commentators take advantage of, relying on the ignorance of both Catholics and non-Catholics. But the 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 norm 1). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

Myth 4: Indulgences were invented to money for the Church.

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 around 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, almsgiving 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."
Why at this time was their such an issue with the selling of indulgences? Where was the money going from these indulgeneces?
 
Why at this time was their such an issue with the selling of indulgences? Where was the money going from these indulgeneces?
It was going to build St Peter’s or some other church building. It’s funny how some Protestant ministers will attack the Catholic Church on selling indulgences, then promise their listeners a “blessing” if they contribute to their ministry!
 
Why at this time was their such an issue with the selling of indulgences? Where was the money going from these indulgeneces?
Because of the great demand from associations that their favourite prayers, devotions, places of worship or pilgrimage, their processions and meetings, be enriched with indulgences, there was a tendency to forge documents declaring that such indulgences, sometimes of extraordinary character, had been granted. Indulgences were attached to many works that were not only good but also served the common good, both religious and civil: churches, hospitals, leprosaria, charitable institutions and schools, and also roads and bridges.

The later Middle Ages saw the growth of considerable abuses, such as the unrestricted sale of indulgences by professional “pardoners” (quaestores in Latin), who were sent to collect contributions to the project. In many cases the preaching of these, out of ignorance or shrewdness, went far beyond dogmatic truth; some of them even dared to promise that the damned would be released from hell. Permission began to be granted to Catholic kings and princes, particularly on the occasion of Crusades, to retain for themselves a rather considerable part of the alms collected for the gaining of indulgences. The most well-known and debated question is the indulgence granted for building the new St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) suppressed some abuses connected with indulgences, spelling out, for example, that only a one-year indulgence would be granted for the consecration of churches and no more than a 40-days indulgence for other occasions. But very soon these limits were widely exceeded. In fact, false documents were circulated with indulgences surpassing all bounds: indulgences of hundreds or even thousands of years. In 1392, more than a century before Martin Luther published the 95 Theses, Pope Boniface IX wrote to the Bishop of Ferrara condemning the practice of certain religious who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next.
 
No. It was condemned in the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 AD. Despite this, there were still abuses.
Where was the guidance of the Holy Spirit during this? How could such a thing happen if the church=Christ and protects her?
 
The selling of indulgence was never permitted by the Catholic Church. It was against the Church Law to do so. When there were abuses brought up, the Council of Trent condemned the selling of indulgence.
"
Do you realize that that Jewish trials at night were illegal. Christians alledge that Jesus was tried at night, because it was against the Jewish law Jesus could never have been tried at night.

ARE YOU NUTS!!!
Of course idulgences were sold and of course it had the approval of the popes and of cardinals.
 
RNRobert;4273831]It was going to build St Peter’s or some other church building.
If the funds were gotten by illegal means should the church have gone through with the building?
It’s funny how some Protestant ministers will attack the Catholic Church on selling indulgences, then promise their listeners a “blessing” if they contribute to their ministry!
i agree this is wrong and should not be done. The prosperity “gospel” teachers who make such claims are frauds.
 
The Church was given authority by God. The Church is an institution. Jesus is the Head of the Church. Yes, the Church are people of God but it was not the people who dogmatically proclaim the Council of Nicea in 325 AD nor was it the People who form the Council of Jerusalem. It was the Elders of the Church, bishops.

Who has Authority? The bishops in union with the Pope. Not the people.
I would add that the people also share in that authority, when they are in union with the Magesterium. 👍
 
These are excellent questions but they don’t address the one that i have been presenting: The Roman Catholic church disqualifies a married man from becoming a bishop.
No, ja4. Married men cannot be “disqualified” for something they did not qualify for in the first place. If God wants a man in the Latin Rite to become a priest and a bishop,then He will be given the gift of celibacy.
For a man to become a bishop in the Roman Catholic church he must be single and celibate. He must not have a wife. This goes against the Scriptures.
It seems to go against your understanding of them, certainly. How is this commandment different than women cutting their hair, and being silent in the church? Why do you set aside these commandments, then rail against Catholics?
These other passages you quote are not speaking about the qualifications of a bishop.
Perhaps you do not apply them that way in your faith community, but the Catholic Church does. By what authority did you decide they should not be applied to the qualifications for bishop?
Do you believe that the church before the Protestant Reformation was without fault?
Of course. The church has always been pure and undefiled since He cleansed her by his blood, and the washing of water and the word.

Men attached to the Church, however, are always in need of reform, and did many corrupt and ungodly things. The fault of this is to be laid at their feet, and not at the feet of Christ, who is Head of HIs Body, the Church.
 
Why at this time was their such an issue with the selling of indulgences? Where was the money going from these indulgeneces?
How is this related to the topic, ja4? Do you think that, by proving that there have been corrupt individuals in the office of authority that it means the authority of the office is not valid?

Catholics will conceded that there have been plenty of corrupt popes, bishops, priests, etc.

There have been plenty of corrupt presidents too, and it has not subtracted anything from the authority of the commander in chief.
But it was “legal” at the time before Trent. Correct?
No, it was not "possible’. It was an abuse that was taking advantage of the ignorant. There had been no law against it because they made it all up as they went along, creating new and more despicable abuses as the days went by.

Abuse is never “legal” from a moral perspective, whether there is a law about it or not. It is not “legal” to take the life of the innocent unborn child, though there is a law that says it is.

Lying to people is not “legal” morally either.
Where was the guidance of the Holy Spirit during this? How could such a thing happen if the church=Christ and protects her?
The evidence of the HS is seen in the actions of the councils, as has been posted.

Where was the guidance of the HS when Judas and Peter betrayed Christ? How could such a thing happen after they spent three years with him, and were appointed by Him to be Apostles?

You seem to believe that, if a person has authority, that person will not make a mistake! :eek:

Do you think if a parent gets angry with their child, and over disciplines them (like grounding them forever) relieves them of their parental rights?
Do you realize that that Jewish trials at night were illegal. Christians alledge that Jesus was tried at night, because it was against the Jewish law Jesus could never have been tried at night.

ARE YOU NUTS!!!
Of course idulgences were sold and of course it had the approval of the popes and of cardinals.
It is not right, and it is not church teaching. I won’t deny there were wrongdoers. It was wrong for the disciples to abandon Christ. It did not mean they were no longer apostles.
If the funds were gotten by illegal means should the church have gone through with the building?
A just moral question. How is it related to the topic?
i agree this is wrong and should not be done. The prosperity “gospel” teachers who make such claims are frauds.
Do you think they never do any good with the money? IF it does get spent on good works, isn’t that better than nothing?
 
Why at this time was their such an issue with the selling of indulgences? Where was the money going from these indulgeneces?
No such thing is even remotely possible. The Church condemns it.
TThe Roman Catholic church disqualifies a married man from becoming a bishop.
Again, wrong. Please see post #138.
Was it right and of Christ the way indulgences were sold to the people during this people? Did not the way this was done have the highest approval in the church i.e. the pope?
Please study your CF.
 
The unbelievable denial is rampant.
Of course idulgences were sold of course the pope not only knew but approved it.
It is because of this and many other abuses the the Catholic Church has lost much of its authority.
God takes authority away from wicked men. Many of the popes and leaders of the Catholic Church were wicked in the middle ages.
 
The unbelievable denial is rampant.
Of course idulgences were sold of course the pope not only knew but approved it.
It is because of this and many other abuses the the Catholic Church has lost much of its authority.
God takes authority away from wicked men. Many of the popes and leaders of the Catholic Church were wicked in the middle ages.
And today we have a brand new energetic, religious, holy, and intelligent Pope.
There is a time for everything… you know? 🙂
We love you Pope Benedict XV!!:harp:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top