J
justasking4
Guest
Do you believe all the doctrines and practices of the catholic church come from an understanding of the what the scriptures say?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
vocatio
Guest
I guess the only book you read other than the bible now is Loraine Beottner’s “Catholicism” and Jack Chick tracts…note Chick tracts aren’t books so don’t qualify as books.No we have talked about the apostasy that was taught that a person could buy a loved one out of purgatory for a price.
The apostasy that a person could buy a position of bishop or cardinal for a price. The practice of on could become a prince if they paid the pope enough. There is plenty of apostasy to be had in viewing the Church headquatered at Rome.
The “HERESY” you are dealing with can easily be referenced via googl…but you need to hear the other side of the story. I believe that heresy was widely criticized and ultimately stopped. It existed in Germany I believe, but who knows where else it hit. The Church has made this stop, but that doesn’t mean their aren’t idiots out their doing such things.
J
justasking4
Guest
I don’t know what other protestants think but I prefer this definition:Is this the definition all Protestants use and the one I can use as my base?
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.
If we are going to determine what apostasy is and when it occurs we need a criteria to determine this. Fallible men in a fallible church is not an adequate criteria or rule. Only the inspired-inerrant Word of God can help to determine what apostacy is and when it occurs.
P
peary
Guest
The matter of FAITH is the existence of the purgatory state and that we can PRAY FOR THE SOULS who are experiencing a purgation for their sins and their perseverence before entry to Heaven. THAT is a matter of Faith. The Church has never taught in any way, shape or form that one can purchase a soul out of purgatory LOLSo teaching you can buy a loved one out of purgatory is not deviation in a matter of faith?
V
VWcrazy
Guest
This is definitely on-topic.Cant stay on topic can you.
J
jimmy
Guest
Actually, you seem not to understand what apostacy is. If the Church were to apostacize it would cease to be Christian. Your examples are not apostacy, even though they may be errors. It may be erroneous that many priests sold indulgences but the fact is this is not the same thing as apostacy. Further, this was not a matter of the whole Church accepting a new teaching so to say the Church apostasized is meaningless. The same goes with your other examples. Whether a man could become cardenal if he paid money is irrelevant to whether the doctrines of the Church were true. I could say that the Anglicans apostasized when they killed the Carthusian monks in the 16th century but it wouldn’t be an accurate statement. I could say that protestants apostasized when Jimmy Swaggert was caught with a prostitute. But again it wouldn’t be an accurate statement.No we have talked about the apostasy that was taught that a person could buy a loved one out of purgatory for a price.
The apostasy that a person could buy a position of bishop or cardinal for a price. The practice of on could become a prince if they paid the pope enough. There is plenty of apostasy to be had in viewing the Church headquatered at Rome.
H
Hisalone
Guest
You are in fact wrong.Actually, you seem not to understand what apostacy is. If the Church were to apostacize it would cease to be Christian. Your examples are not apostacy, even though they may be errors. It may be erroneous that many priests sold indulgences but the fact is this is not the same thing as apostacy. Further, this was not a matter of the whole Church accepting a new teaching so to say the Church apostasized is meaningless. The same goes with your other examples. Whether a man could become cardenal if he paid money is irrelevant to whether the doctrines of the Church were true. I could say that the Anglicans apostasized when they killed the Carthusian monks in the 16th century but it wouldn’t be an accurate statement. I could say that protestants apostasized when Jimmy Swaggert was caught with a prostitute. But again it wouldn’t be an accurate statement.
To teach that one could buy a loved one out of purgatory is apostasy. No longer is it the work of Jesus in sanctification but $$$$$$.
J
jimmy
Guest
The fact is that you have to show where this was actually taught. This was not an actual teaching but was an act of some priests. Many priests may have made mistakes but their mistakes are not a matter of the whole Church apostasizing.You are in fact wrong.
To teach that one could buy a loved one out of purgatory is apostasy. No longer is it the work of Jesus in sanctification but $$$$$$.
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
The abuse of “selling” indulgences was NEVER a doctrine of the faith. It was an abuse introduced by persons calling themselves Catholic, including the pope at the time.No we have talked about the apostasy that was taught that a person could buy a loved one out of purgatory for a price.
The apostasy that a person could buy a position of bishop or cardinal for a price. The practice of on could become a prince if they paid the pope enough. There is plenty of apostasy to be had in viewing the Church headquatered at Rome.
It was never a teaching of the church.
J
justasking4
Guest
Are you saying the pope and those who supported him were not real catholics?The abuse of “selling” indulgences was NEVER a doctrine of the faith. It was an abuse introduced by persons calling themselves Catholic, including the pope at the time.
It was never a teaching of the church.
H
Harpazo
Guest
Which Pope supported these things making it doctrine or dogma? No Pope ever did such a thing. Why do you and Hisalone project these myths?Are you saying the pope and those who supported him were not real catholics?
Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
L
Lampo
Guest
It astonishes me how you say “fallible men in a fallible church” in the same breath as you describe the Scriptures as being infallible. These same “fallible men” and same “fallible Church” are the same ones who gave you the Scriptures. If that is so, how do you know they didn’t get it wrong when they chose what books were inspired since they could error in matters of faith? Furthermore, how do you even know the Bible is inerrant?I don’t know what other protestants think but I prefer this definition:
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.
If we are going to determine what apostasy is and when it occurs we need a criteria to determine this. Fallible men in a fallible church is not an adequate criteria or rule. Only the inspired-inerrant Word of God can help to determine what apostacy is and when it occurs.
V
VWcrazy
Guest
The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. /QUOTE]
Since this is in direct contridication of Scripture, I guess this is apostacy, also.
L
Lampo
Guest
So you admit there is no unity in Protestantism?I don’t know what other protestants think but I prefer this definition:
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Heresy maybe, but hardly apostasy. Check your definitions.You are in fact wrong.
To teach that one could buy a loved one out of purgatory is apostasy. No longer is it the work of Jesus in sanctification but $$$$$$.
L
Lampo
Guest
How do you know this?It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
The RCC suffered from icrementalism/slippery slope where over centuries it fell inot a institution that apostate.
Who could deny the selling of indulgences is apostate yet you in fact will make every attempt possible to say that it didnt happen.
It was an abuse, & a serious one (as the Fathers at the Council of Trent recognised). But such evils do not destroy the identity of the Church, though they do obscure it. The Apostolic Church was not free from attempted simony, sexual immorality, & other evils - was it apostate ?
Apostasy is abandonment of Christ & the Church; this was not the problem with the traffic in indulgences (which in themselves are a great blessing). If great evils in a Church could “unchurch” it, then every Church now existing would be apostate.
J
justasking4
Guest
Is not indulgences a doctrine of your church? Did not Tetzel have the full support of the pope i.e. the vicar of Christ on earth?Originally Posted by justasking4
Are you saying the pope and those who supported him were not real catholics?
Harpazo
Which Pope supported these things making it doctrine or dogma? No Pope ever did such a thing. Why do you and Hisalone project these myths?
Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
Was there any resistence from the bishops at the time to what Tetzel under the authority of pope was doing?
J
justasking4
Guest
This is what it means to be inspired. This is the kind of defintion given in a greek lexicon of the NT.Originally Posted by justasking4
It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.
Lampo
How do you know this?
Secondly, what else do you know that is inspired-inerrant?
J
justasking4
Guest
No. There is a lot of unity.So you admit there is no unity in Protestantism?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.