The pope, apparently, has the power to send people to hell

[CrossoverManiac]

LilyM:

Missing Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation is no more or less serious than missing any Sunday mass. Holy Days of Obligation were created in the first place because important festivals (like celebrating HIS birth and events in HIS life, and HIS mother’s life, mostly) don’t always conveniently fall on a Sunday. These are events that for many different reasons the Church thinks important enough to commemorate - did you ever ask anyone WHY each event is commemorated?

I never said the pope couldn’t declare Holy Days of Obligation. I never said celebrating Jesus’ birth and His mother’s life wasn’t important. I said the Pope couldn’t make up a mortal sin, which he did when he said missing Holy Days of Obligation were mortal sins. Do you really want a flawed man to determine your eternal destination or God?

Holy days are all part and parcel of Sabbath observance - after all, the Jews also had holy days that weren’t on Saturdays, and I don’t think all of them are named explicitly in the Old Testament.

Then Paul told the Church they were no longer required to worship on those days.

Heck, a fair number of people go to church every single day of the year. They have this funny feeling of love for God and they actually WANT to spend time with him even if they don’t have to - imagine that!

Red Herring. This is a discussion on the authority of the pope, not individual spirituality. I have no objections to going to Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation. I try going to Mass even when it’s not required of me. But the Pope has no right to invent a mortal sin.

As it is there are only a handful of non-Sunday Holy Days. Quit whining and offer it up as a sacrifice and a heroic instance of obedience if you don’t actually like going.

And just how do you know that I don’t go. I do go to Mass on Holy Days as well as on Sundays. This ain’t about me like or disliking going to Church.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

1ke:

I’d say he changed the title because that’s descriptive of your question. And just as the pope has authority over Catholics, Fr Vincent has authority over his forum questions.

I pointed that out because, apparently, Fr. Vincent believes that the Pope has the power to condemn people to Hell. Also, even if he is the moderator, he shouldn’t change the content of a message unless the content are vulgar, personal attacks against another forum member, or if the material is off topic. It’s looked down upon as censorship. I won’t say he did in this instant since he only changed the title of the thread and not the thread content itself. But moderators, responsible moderators, don’t abuse their authority, and I hope that’s not you’re condoning here.

Disobeying the Church authority IS a mortal sin. He didn’t decide that-- Jesus did.

Then you believe the Church has the authority to buy and sell time off from purgatory or have people executed for heresy.

God ratifies what is bound on earth. The authority comes from God. No one “tells” God who can go to Heaven and who can’t.

The Pope just did when he invented a mortal sin.

You have funny ideas. A person sends HIMSELF to hell by purposeful rejection of the Church, God, and the purposeful commitment of mortal sins.

So, you think the people who refused to buy indulgences or go along with the Inquisition are in Hell.

 

[wcknight]

CoM, you seem to have a problem with papal authority. Jesus gave Peter AND his successors the authority to govern His Church as they saw fit.

“Whatever you bind of earth it is bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose of earth it is loose in Heaven”.

That included the authority/power to forgive sins, not forgive sins, and make the rules as they saw fit.

BUT as a matter of practice, popes do not arbitrarily or single handedly make up new doctrines or rules on a whim. They have the Magisterium, bishops and cardinals, and an army of theologians research and examine everything before they make up a new doctrine.

In case you haven’t noticed, we do not live under an Inquisition or anything like it. We may have had some bad popes in the past, but for the last 100 years or so, we have had some of the best.

BTW popes do not, as a matter of practice, condemn anyone to Hell, whether or not you abide by the rules is up to you. Whether anyone goes to Hell or not is not up to any pope it is solely between God and that individual.

Anyone may break a rule or doctrine, but whether or not it is a mortal sin or even if it is a sin at all, is a judgement made by God, NOT by the Pope.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

wcknight:

CoM, you seem to have a problem with papal authority. Jesus gave Peter AND his successors the authority to govern His Church as they saw fit.

“Whatever you bind of earth it is bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose of earth it is loose in Heaven”.

That isn’t an absolute authority. Otherwise, the buying and selling of indulgences would be allowed.

That included the authority/power to forgive sins, not forgive sins,

But God chooses what is the sin and what isn’t.

and make the rules as they saw fit.

But not to decide penalties for breaking them. That’s God’s domain.

BUT as a matter of practice, popes do not arbitrarily or single handedly make up new doctrines or rules on a whim. They have the Magisterium, bishops and cardinals, and an army of theologians research and examine everything before they make up a new doctrine.

It’s still men inventing a mortal sin.

In case you haven’t noticed, we do not live under an Inquisition or anything like it. We may have had some bad popes in the past, but for the last 100 years or so, we have had some of the best.

Hold on a second. You said we must abide by the authority of the Pope. If that’s so, then you can’t say “This is a bad pope, so we shouldn’t listen to him.” You can’t condemn me for not listening to what I think is bad canon law and then say we mustn’t listen to bad canon law.

 

[martino]

if the Pope (or the Church) doesnt have the authority to do this as you seem to be asserting, then why are you so bothered by it?

if my anti-Catholic neighbor declared to me that i was on the highway to hell i would not be bothered in the slightest because i know he has no authority over me.

if the Pope has no authority to declare missing Mass a mortal sin; why in the world are you so concerned over his mistake?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

CrossoverManiac:

I pointed that out because, apparently, Fr. Vincent believes that the Pope has the power to condemn people to Hell.

That’s your read of it, based on the incorrect presumption that the Church defining what is or isn’t mortal sin for Catholics is equivalent to individual judgement of individuals.

CrossoverManiac:

Also, even if he is the moderator, he shouldn’t change the content of a message unless the content are vulgar, personal attacks against another forum member, or if the material is off topic. It’s looked down upon as censorship. I won’t say he did in this instant since he only changed the title of the thread and not the thread content itself. But moderators, responsible moderators, don’t abuse their authority, and I hope that’s not you’re condoning here.

The “Ask an Apologist” section is more an interactive FAQ than a proper forum, and it is responsible for a FAQ moderator to reword the title question for clarity on what issue is being addressed, especially when the sumbitted question is has some rather obvious incorrect presumptions built into it that it would be irresponsible to validate though public repetition without detailed clarification (e.g. the sort of clarification given in the longer text response).

CrossoverManiac:

Then you believe the Church has the authority to buy and sell time off from purgatory or have people executed for heresy.

This is inconsistent with your original criticism, since the practice of selling indulgences was carried out by individuals without approval of the practice from Rome, while your objection in the OP was against Rome defining as sinful failure to adhere to certain instructions. It is ridiculous to say that Rome is at fault for abuses despite not ever instructing them and for attaching penalties to violations of things it did instruct the faithful to adhere to.

CrossoverManiac:

The Pope just did when he invented a mortal sin.

When you address the prior posts addressing where there was precedent for required non-Sabbath observances, we can pick this up again, but you’ve ignored substantial parts of several posts addressing this theme, so I’m presuming you are just repeating the “invented a mortal sin” line for emotional effect to avoid addressing the challenged presumptions upon which you are loosely basing your conclusions.

CrossoverManiac:

So, you think the people who refused to buy indulgences or go along with the Inquisition are in Hell.

Its becoming rather obvious that you keep accusing others of introducing red herrings to cover the ridiculous fictions you keep wanting to introduce as facts without being challenged. Neither the buying indulgences nor supporting the abuses of the Spanish Inquisition have ever been taught as required beliefs of the Church with penalties attached The Church never, ever taught that buying indulgences was required to avoid Hell. Likewise, the “go along with the Inquisition” part is so vauge as to be meangless beyond some sort of emotional context. Which Church run Inquisition are you referring to as objectionable, and where did the Church proper (e.g. the pope or a major council) ever teach that failure to go along with said Inquisition was enough to land someone in Hell (hint, if you refer to a phase of an Inquisition where the folks running the show threw into prison the papal prelate sent to stop them, it doesn’t count as “Church-run”). You’ve made some radical accusations here, lets see your source material.

CrossoverManiac:

But not to decide penalties for breaking them. That’s God’s domain.

Where can you establish that you have been given the authority to decide the Church does not have the authority to let the faithful know which major category (mortal vs venial) they should consider violations of various instructions of the Church fit into?

 

[CrossoverManiac]

martino:

if the Pope (or the Church) doesnt have the authority to do this as you seem to be asserting, then why are you so bothered by it?

if my anti-Catholic neighbor declared to me that i was on the highway to hell i would not be bothered in the slightest because i know he has no authority over me.

if the Pope has no authority to declare missing Mass a mortal sin; why in the world are you so concerned over his mistake?

Because I care when my spiritual leaders overstep their bounds.

 

[jman507]

The pope is your spiritual leader? Are you Catholic?

 

[mikew262]

PureGrace:

The pope does not have the power to send anyone to hell. Yes, our faith requires that we submit to his authority, but if we choose not to, we are making the choice not to submit. People who deliberately choose to ignore the teachings of the of the Roman Catholic Church (ie the Gospel of Christ) and, of course, the teachings of the pontiff concerning faith and morals when they know these teachings to be true are making the choice to defy Christ. The defiant individual has used his free will to turn away from God and the teachings of Christ and chooses Hell for himself by choosing to be disobediant. Period. I honestly cannot see the fuss.

All Protestants ignore the teachings of the Catholic Church. This doesn’t mean they are going to Hell. Are you including them or just Catholics? If a Catholic leaves the Church, and he comes a Methodist, that doesn’t mean he is defying Christ. He just chose to worship him in a different manner.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

mikew262:

If a Catholic leaves the Church, and he comes a Methodist, that doesn’t mean he is defying Christ. He just chose to worship him in a different manner.

The status of Protestants in general is variable, but they are (generally) not held to the same standards as Catholics since they have (generally) not been properly informed.

However, a Catholic leaving the Church established by Christ is indeed rejecting the Christ to the extent he rejects Christ’s decision to give authority to the apostles. There are acknowledgements pf extenuating circumstances even in this scenario (for instance, the too-often abysmal state of Catholic catechisis), but the level of personal responsibility is much higher for a Catholic leaving that a Protestant failing to fully join Christ’s Church.

 

[Writer]

CrossoverManiac:

I brought the following questions to the “Ask the Apologetics” forum and titled the thread Personal peeve against the idea of holy days of obligation for, some reason I can only guess had the title changed to “How can the pope cause people to go to hell?”

The apologist at the forum answered give the following reply

Apparently, Fr. Vincent changed the title of my thread to “How can the pope cause people to go to hell?” to let us know that, yes, the pope can send people to Hell. Yes, he claims that Jesus Christ ultimately decides who goes to Heaven or Hell, but he also states that the pope can not only choose Holy Days of Obligations, but also declare them to mortal sins if Mass is not attented on those days. Now, if the Pope can declare that missing Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation to be a mortal sin, then he, technically speaking, judging the refusal of a person to comply to his commands to be worthy going to Hell. He further claims that those days are not choosen arbitrarily, which is funny because no where in scripture does it state when Christ was born (Christmas) or when to honor all of the saints fallen asleep in Christ (All Saints Day). I have no problems with the Pope requiring Catholics to attend Mass on certain days, but there’s a big difference between declaring Holy Days of Obligation and telling God who can go to Heaven and who can’t.

While I like Father Serpa’s answer on this, I also am slightly troubled with the title change. On another note, though, why can’t we call these holy days of opportunity instead of obligation?

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Ray_Scheel:

That’s your read of it, based on the incorrect presumption that the Church defining what is or isn’t mortal sin for Catholics is equivalent to individual judgement of individuals.

Does a mortal sin lead someone to hell? Yes. Did the Catholic Church declare missing Mass on a Holy Day to be a mortal sin? Yes. Does that condemn the individual to Hell? Yes. Sounds like an individual judgment to me.

The “Ask an Apologist” section is more an interactive FAQ than a proper forum, and it is responsible for a FAQ moderator to reword the title question for clarity on what issue is being addressed, especially when the sumbitted question is has some rather obvious incorrect presumptions built into it that it would be irresponsible to validate though public repetition without detailed clarification (e.g. the sort of clarification given in the longer text response).

Then I stand corrected and apologize.

This is inconsistent with your original criticism, since the practice of selling indulgences was carried out by individuals without approval of the practice from Rome, while your objection in the OP was against Rome defining as sinful failure to adhere to certain instructions. It is ridiculous to say that Rome is at fault for abuses despite not ever instructing them and for attaching penalties to violations of things it did instruct the faithful to adhere to.

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences:
Wikipedia:

In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, a situation that took on the of selling indulgences. The aggressive marketing practices of Johann Tetzel in promoting this cause provoked Martin Luther to write his 95 theses, protesting the purchase and sale of salvation. From this controversy the Protestant Reformation was launched.

and then I confirmed this with Catholic Encyclopedia
Catholic Encyclopedia:

Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined.

When you address the prior posts addressing where there was precedent for required non-Sabbath observances, we can pick this up again,

I have addressed though. You didn’t read them.

but you’ve ignored substantial parts of several posts addressing this theme, so I’m presuming you are just repeating the “invented a mortal sin” line for emotional effect to avoid addressing the challenged presumptions upon which you are loosely basing your conclusions.

Does the Bible say to attend Mass on Jesus’ birthday? No. Does the Bible say to attend Mass when Mary was immaculately conceived? No. Does God warn the Church that attendant on those days were required for salvation? No. So where did the Pope get the idea that missing Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation was a sin unless he created them.

Its becoming rather obvious that you keep accusing others of introducing red herrings to cover the ridiculous fictions you keep wanting to introduce as facts without being challenged. Neither the buying indulgences nor supporting the abuses of the Spanish Inquisition have ever been taught as required beliefs of the Church with penalties attached The Church never, ever taught that buying indulgences was required to avoid Hell.

The Church did teach it was okay to sell them, and to go against Church teaching and condemn the selling of indulgences is rebelling against the Church. And what I’ve been told, disobedience against the Church is a mortal sin. So being against indulgences is a grievance sin.

(continue to the next post)

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Ray_Scheel:

Likewise, the “go along with the Inquisition” part is so vauge as to be meangless beyond some sort of emotional context. Which Church run Inquisition are you referring to as objectionable, and where did the Church proper (e.g. the pope or a major council) ever teach that failure to go along with said Inquisition was enough to land someone in Hell (hint, if you refer to a phase of an Inquisition where the folks running the show threw into prison the papal prelate sent to stop them, it doesn’t count as “Church-run”). You’ve made some radical accusations here, lets see your source material.

From bartleby.com/65/in/Inquisit.html

The Medieval Inquisition
In the early Middle Ages investigation of heresy was a duty of the bishops. Alarmed especially by the spread of Albigensianism (see Albigenses), the popes issued increasingly stringent instructions as to the methods for dealing with heretics. Finally, in 1233, Pope Gregory IX established the papal Inquisition, dispatching Dominican friars to S France to conduct inquests. 2
When an inquisitor arrived, a month of grace was allowed to all who wished to confess to heresy and to recant; these were given a light penance, which was intended to confirm their faith. After the period of grace, persons accused of heresy who had not abjured were brought to trial. The defendants were not given the names of their accusers, but they could name their enemies and thus nullify any testimony by these persons. After 1254 the accused had no right to counsel, but those found guilty could appeal to the pope. The trials were conducted secretly in the presence of a representative of the bishop and of a stipulated number of local laymen. Torture of the accused and his witnesses soon became customary and notorious, despite the long-standing papal condemnation of torture (e.g., by Nicholas I); Innocent IV ultimately permitted torture in cases of heresy.

Though, I will admit that, upon reading about the Inquisition at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition, I found that the Spanish Inquisition was the brainchild of the Spanish monarchy. But the Papal did, in fact, brought about their own Inquisition and used torture to obtain confessions dispite the condemnation of torture by previous popes. And to get back on subject, did the Papacy have the right to call up an Inquisition and use torture to obtain confessions.

Where can you establish that you have been given the authority to decide the Church does not have the authority to let the faithful know which major category (mortal vs venial) they should consider violations of various instructions of the Church fit into?

The burden of proof is on you to show that the Church has that far reaching power.

 

[shannin]

svoboda:

But there are so many arguments to go either way. Does God exist? Maybe maybe not. Does he reveal himself to human beings? Maybe maybe not. Is the Catholic Church the one God founded? Maybe maybe not. That is now I see it.
There are so many arguments for various different positions.
Can people be blamed for not acknowledging an authority that cannot prove it has anything to do with God?

Dear Sister, If these thoughts and feelings are truly in your mind, heart and soul then I feel very sorry for you. You have no clue as to what you are missing. I can tell you that God does indeed reveal Himself to us in many ways, through His Son and the Holy Spirit, and I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that the Catholic Church is the one true Church that was instituted by Jesus Christ. Jesus left a working Church, one with Saint Peter in charge and he breathed the Holy Spirit upon His Church and the Church has survived for over 2000 years. Of course there are many sinners in the Church, but the Church Herself is not sinful. Jesus also left us His Body and Blood in the form of the Holy Eucharist. He left us His mother, Mary. He left the seven sacraments in order for us to increase in His grace. What more could we ask for?

Just think about it for a minute - He left us His Body & Blood, His mother Mary, a Holy Church that He breathed the Holy Spirit upon, all of our beautiful sacraments and traditions.

I can see how you can always blame people for doing things that harm human beings (ie. rape, murder, abuse). But the more technical things such as the mass, such as remarrying after having been abandoned, such as use of birth control are harder to make a case for.

Jesus gave the Peter the authority to make these rules and laws concerning our Church. It would be chaos if we didn’t have a Pope to establish rules and laws within the Church.

From my perspective there are so many valid arguments for atheism, deism, pantheism etc. that no one can knowingly reject God by rejecting Catholicism. (Unless of course they’ve had private revelation)

I don’t know what deism and pantheism are. I don’t need to know what they are because I have the truth in the Catholic Church.

There have been many private revelations and all you have to do is study some of the lives of our Saints. I had a private revelation when I was 6 years old on the day that I received First Holy Communion that I’ve talked about in other threads in these forums many many times.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Writer:

While I like Father Serpa’s answer on this, I also am slightly troubled with the title change. On another note, though, why can’t we call these holy days of opportunity instead of obligation?

I don’t mind there being an obligation to go. My problem is how can they consider it to be a mortal sin to miss since it’s a tradition of man and not a rule of God.

 

[BryPGuy89]

CrossoverManiac:

I brought the following questions to the “Ask the Apologetics” forum and titled the thread Personal peeve against the idea of holy days of obligation for, some reason I can only guess had the title changed to “How can the pope cause people to go to hell?”

The apologist at the forum answered give the following reply

Apparently, Fr. Vincent changed the title of my thread to “How can the pope cause people to go to hell?” to let us know that, yes, the pope can send people to Hell. Yes, he claims that Jesus Christ ultimately decides who goes to Heaven or Hell, but he also states that the pope can not only choose Holy Days of Obligations, but also declare them to mortal sins if Mass is not attented on those days. Now, if the Pope can declare that missing Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation to be a mortal sin, then he, technically speaking, judging the refusal of a person to comply to his commands to be worthy going to Hell. He further claims that those days are not choosen arbitrarily, which is funny because no where in scripture does it state when Christ was born (Christmas) or when to honor all of the saints fallen asleep in Christ (All Saints Day). I have no problems with the Pope requiring Catholics to attend Mass on certain days, but there’s a big difference between declaring Holy Days of Obligation and telling God who can go to Heaven and who can’t.

The pope isn’t telling God who can and can’t go to Heaven, God gave the authority to the pope and the pope does the will of God (usually). God doesn’t ask for the permission, but agrees with the decision of the lesser, like a vice president making an emergency decion without the consent of the president, as long as it was a right decision, why question it.

 

[BryPGuy89]

svoboda:

If you’re Catholic you have to believe he has the keys to the kingdom and can bind and loose.

I am not Catholic.

It says it in the Bible, so I would like to think any Christian would have to except that. Some Christians just like to make up their own ways of looking at things deny many of Gods truths set forth in the Bible.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

BryPGuy89:

The pope isn’t telling God who can and can’t go to Heaven, God gave the authority to the pope and the pope does the will of God (usually). God doesn’t ask for the permission, but agrees with the decision of the lesser, like a vice president making an emergency decion without the consent of the president, as long as it was a right decision, why question it.

1). Because of the serious nature of the decision (determining the fates of millions for eternity)

2). Because the Pope has been wrong in the past and I have the sources to prove it.

As an authority figure, we should trust the Pope…to a point. After that point, then go to God.

 

[wcknight]

CoM, you seem to have a problem with Papal and Church authority, and you are overlooking some details…

Firstoff, Jesus Himself gave St. Peter AND all his successors the authority to govern His Church. He said “whatever you bind on earth it is bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth it is loose in Heaven.”

Second, the Pope does not make decisions in a vacuum, he consults with all the bishops and cardinals, and has many theologians research any proposed doctrine. No decisions are arbitrary or on a whim.

and third, it is NOT the Pope that judges anyone whether or not they have committed a mortal sin. That judgement is made by God alone. The Pope does not and can not send anyone to Hell. Whether or not you commit a mortal sin is determined by God and by yourself.

However the Pope when making a declaration about faith or morals in an official capacity IS speaking for Christ Himself. Whether or not you believe it or follow it is up to you, and whether or not it is a mortal sin is between you and God.

No one can send you to Hell except you or God, and no one can make you commit a mortal sin except yourself.

IF you have a problem with some of the Church doctrines, I suggest you read up on the background history and why the Church made such declarations. They were not done without a whole lot of research and study and evidence.

If you look at the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, you will find that Mary herself confirmed that title through her appearance to St. Bernadette at Lourdes. And St. Bernadette’s incorrupt body in France is proof positive that the events were real.

Part of being Catholic is believing that Jesus and the Holy Spirit continues to guide and lead the Church through the Pope and the Magisterium. The Pope does not do it alone. He is not making it all up as he goes along.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

CrossoverManiac:

The burden of proof is on you to show that the Church has that far reaching power.

Taking this out of order to handle first things first. Your argument revolves around a claim that there are unwritten restrictions on the authority to bind and loose and are claiming to have the authority to detail what those restrictions are. If your problem is with the Church’s authority to bind and loose, it is useless for to debate about practices based on the Church’s use of that authority until the underlying point of conflict is addressed.

CrossoverManiac:

Does a mortal sin lead someone to hell? Yes. Did the Catholic Church declare missing Mass on a Holy Day to be a mortal sin? Yes. Does that condemn the individual to Hell? Yes. Sounds like an individual judgment to me.

The Church’s actual position is that dying in a state of unrepentent mortal sin is the only way a person can wind up in Hell. However, simply comitting a mortal sin does not automatically result in a judgement of eternity in Hell, and the Church makes no claim on the ability to read whether someone has repented in thier heart without opportunity for confession (or whether some other factor reduced their culpability). From a civil angle, declaring that murder is a felony carrying a life sentence does not mean everybody that kills someone is automatically sent to prison for life. Judgement comes later, and there is a determinaton as to whether the killing fit the criteria for murder, if it was less grevious (e.g. manslaughter) or even truly accidental.

CrossoverManiac:

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences:
and then I confirmed this with Catholic Encyclopedia

Where’s the Where’s the part about going to Hell for refusing to buy an indulgence as supposedly sold? How about whether what been said about the sale of indulgences by Johann Tetzel really happened the way popularized by the Reformers? There is considerably uncertainty about whether the sale of indulgences as popularized was real or a tool of the Reformers to sow confusion. newadvent.org/cathen/14539a.htm

CrossoverManiac:

I have addressed though. You didn’t read them.

Unilaterally dismissing particular instances of equivalent Jewish celebrations as irrelevant based on a stretched interpretation of a particular verse neither addresses the points nor gives one license to continue to accuse the popes of “inventing” the idea of HDO’s. Again in civil terms, evidence of prior art voids a claim of a “new” invention equivalent to the old method. There was a prior practice of required non-Sabbath religious observances, thus maintaing equvalents within Christianity was “inventing”, but modifying.

CrossoverManiac:

Does the Bible… Does the Bible say…

This entire paragraph of yours was based on the sola scriptura error that everything must belisted in the Bible to be binding. The main Catholic Answers site has many excellent resources on the flaws of sola scriptura arguments, please review them before continuing with such an approach in a thread about HDO’s.

CrossoverManiac:

And what I’ve been told, disobedience against the Church is a mortal sin. So being against indulgences is a grievance sin.

If the Church actually condoned the sale of indulgences as practice. If condemning abuses was sinful. If all disobedience against the Church was mortal. If, if, if - your claims rest on a series of presumptions that all have to be decisively true, yet the actual state of most of the presumptions ranges from dubious to outright false. Its time to ditch our conclusion and start over based on more solid sources than what you based your original conclusion on

CrossoverManiac:

And to get back on subject, did the Papacy have the right to call up an Inquisition and use torture to obtain confessions.

Calling an inquisition (an inquiry), yes, calling a canonical trial is withing the authority of the Church when dealing with professing Catholics preaching heresy. The Roman Inquisition gone through a name change and is now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (what B16 headed as Cdl Ratzinger), which is still the final court of appeal for diosecean tribunals. Torture should never have been permitted, though that looks like isolated incident and not an integral part of Inquisition policy.