Protestant errors and inventions (3)

[Albion]

Absolutely there are protestant denominations! I've got a dozen of them within a ten minute walk from me. What has been left undecided is whether there is a Protestant Church or not. At this point, I've heard protestants call it both ways. However, if we are going to toss out the mythical Protestant Church, we might also toss out the myth of protestant unity or the myth that protestant denominationalism is a good thing, similar to Baskin Robbin's 31 flavors.

Well, my feeling is that diversity isn't necessarily bad, and if it is, then the Catholic churches exhibit the exact same characteristic, with the hundreds of competing Catholic denominations/communions that exist. There is, of course, no single "the Protestant Church," no matter who might speak that way.

I'm just saying that if you're going to toss the imaginary entity of the protestant church you're going to have to toss out all the errors and inventions that have come with it. They're just products of the imagination as well.

That's just a matter of opinion, from what I can tell. Catholics have their myths and Protestants--depending on who you have in mind--have their myths. Most of what I see on your list, however, are items that apply to maybe a handful of Protestant denominations but not the majority of Protestants churches; or else they are trivia that doesn't really matter much. Like a Mourner's bench that you were so giddy to hear about. We can't really put altar calls up against something like believing in Mary as the co-redeemer of the universe.

If perhaps you were able to define yourselves better we wouldn't be having this disparity.

I'm not even going to rebut such nonsense. You know very well that you have created a list with little care for accuracy so long as it makes all Protestants look foolish or shallow...which is exactly what is intended by implying that Jehovah's Witness beliefs held by no Protestant church you or I know of are typical of Protestantism!

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm not rewriting history. Should we look at the popes for the century before the reformation? How about the abuses on peasants? How about the oppression of the yeoman?

Secondly, Luther posted his 95 theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg in hopes of eliciting discussion, however, because of the printing press, the theses were printed and distributed, which is what led the masses to protest. Luther voiced what many were afraid to voice for fear of prosecution or death.

Regardless of the demeanor of some people in their personal lives, however true or untrue it may be, the Church reformed, and reforms every day.

When you consider how Luther regretted starting the ball rolling, you have to wonder why he didn't work within the confines of the Church, if he wanted to effect real change. There were no indulgences being sold by the Church. Never. It's not Church doctrine that you can buy your way to heaven. A particular person or group probably suggested that they could, but if that's the case, Luther went to the wrong venue. We know Luther had a problem with being over-scrupulous, among other things.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You'll have to do better than that. Nothing is impossible with God, but there are things that He simply won't do. Sharing His glory is one of them. Lying is another.

Who says God is sharing His glory? Only you. Who says he's lying? Only you.

What's actually telling is the "God will work it out" attitude that many among His professed believers have, as if God isn't concerned about what is taught and believed among His people. There isn't a desire for truth the way there needs to be.

I can agree with you about how people apply the faith they've been given. I've never tried to say that Catholics have an automatic halo. In fact, I know a lot of better Christians than many Catholics. I wouldn't give Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi any merit, though that's between them and God. The Church is in serious need of some work, as is the entire body of the Christian Church. Europe is crumbling and America isn't far behind.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And man never landed on the moon.

Good, can you show me the doctrine which shows that selling indulgences buys someone's way into heaven? When you do that, maybe you can be taken seriously.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It's the unwarranted recognition given to him. Seated on a throne between two cherubim. Allowing people to kneel before him and kiss his hand. Responding when someone calls him "Holy Father". No man should ever allow such honor to be shown to him when he calls himself the "Vicar of Christ".

Throne between two cherubim? Where's that? And if someone wants to kneel in front of him and kiss his hand, if it gives them comfort, why is that something to take time over? The "Substitute of Christ", named so by the Holy Spirit, God Himself, does deserve it, though he doesn't demand any such thing. He has no right to demand it.

So it's your judgement that all that attention is unwarranted. I believe we all give recognition to something that's unwarranted...Stryder06, what is it, in your life, that gets that unwarranted recognition???

 

[Standing Up]

Good, can you show me the doctrine which shows that selling indulgences buys someone's way into heaven? When you do that, maybe you can be taken seriously.

Try this article

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Indulgences

 

[Root of Jesse]

Try this article

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Indulgences

Did you bother to read? I thought not...from the very article:

To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.


An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this definition, the following points are to be noted:

• In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.
• Some writs of indulgence—none of them, however, issued by any pope or council (Pesch, Tr. Dogm., VII, 196, no. 464)—contain the expression, "indulgentia a culpa et a poena", i.e. release from guilt and from punishment; and this has occasioned considerable misunderstanding (cf. Lea, "History" etc. III, 54 sqq.). The real meaning of the formula is that, indulgences presupposing the Sacrament of Penance, the penitent, after receiving sacramental absolution from the guilt of sin, is afterwards freed from the temporal penalty by the indulgence (Bellarmine, "De Indulg"., I, 7). In other words, sin is fully pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely obliterated, only when complete reparation, and consequently release from penalty as well as from guilt, has been made. Hence Clement V (1305-1314) condemned the practice of those purveyors of indulgences who pretended to absolve "a culpa et a poena" (Clement, I. v, tit. 9, c. ii); the Council of Constance (1418) revoked (Sess. XLII, n. 14) all indulgences containing the said formula; Benedict XIV (1740-1758) treats them as spurious indulgences granted in this form, which he ascribes to the illicit practices of the "quaestores" or purveyors (De Syn. dioeces., VIII, viii. 7).
• The satisfaction, usually called the "penance", imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction. It differs also from the penitential works undertaken of his own accord by the repentant sinner — prayer, fasting, alms-giving — in that these are personal and get their value from the merit of him who performs them, whereas an indulgence places at the penitent's disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the "Treasury" of the Church.
• An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the Church and in the tribunal of God. This means that it not only releases the penitent from his indebtedness to the Church or from the obligation of performing canonical penance, but also from the temporal punishment which he has incurred in the sight of God and which, without the indulgence, he would have to undergo in order to satisfy Divine justice. This, however, does not imply that the Church pretends to set aside the claim of God's justice or that she allows the sinner to repudiate his debt. As St. Thomas says (Supplement.25.1 ad 2um), "He who gains indulgences is not thereby released outright from what he owes as penalty, but is provided with the means of paying it." The Church therefore neither leaves the penitent helplessly in debt nor acquits him of all further accounting; she enables him to meet his obligations.
• In granting an indulgence, the grantor (pope or bishop) does not offer his personal merits in lieu of what God demands from the sinner. He acts in his official capacity as having jurisdiction in the Church, from whose spiritual treasury he draws the means wherewith payment is to be made. The Church herself is not the absolute owner, but simply the administratrix, of the superabundant merits which that treasury contains. In applying them, she keeps in view both the design of God's mercy and the demands of God's justice. She therefore determines the amount of each concession, as well as the conditions which the penitent must fulfill if he would gain the indulgence.

 

[Albion]

Try this article

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Indulgences

Interesting article. Not only does it admit that indulgences were sold ( "indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain") but it further states that this was a widespread practice which cannot be denied.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Interesting article. Not only does it admit that indulgences were sold ( "indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain") but it further states that this was a widespread practice which cannot be denied.

And the point that's being made is that practices that go against Church teaching go against what the Church allows. For example, priests are supposed to be celebate, but if a priest has sex, it doesn't mean that the Church allows priests to have sex.

I have never denied that it was a practice. I've always said, though, that it's not what the Church teaches, and it's not condoned. So for Luther to rail against "the Church" for "selling indulgences" is confusing. The Church, in the name of the Pope, would say "that's not Church doctrine, he must be mistaken." Luther should have gone to his bishop first, if the practice was in place, and tried to reform at that level.

There are a lot of things going on at local levels that are not known by the Vatican. I know of a priest who rose to the level of Archbishop when he had a problem with having homosexual lovers on site at his posts as an attache' to the Papal Nuncio in different countries. The powers around him never entered it into his record, and finally the pope elevated him to a Papal Nuncio post, until the pope found out about his real past.

Again, I say, if it's not written in doctrine, it shouldn't be a practice. It is the responsibility of a bishop to know what's going on in his diocese, and to ensure that the diocese is being orthodox.

 

[Albion]

And the point that's being made is that practices that go against Church teaching go against what the Church allows.

Not exactly. The church may have denounced such abuses, but its own personnel--bishops authorized to grant or sell indulgences-- continued to do that for a long time, and it was common knowledge. You may exonerate the Papacy or the church itself in such circumstances, but it is entirely reasonable to say that's not good enough. The people were allowed to believe that sins were forgiven by indulgences as well. And then came Luther whose offense was nothing more than asking why this should still be going on!

 

[shturt678]

Not exactly. The church may have denounced such abuses, but its own personnel--bishops authorized to grant or sell indulgences-- continued to do that for a long time, and it was common knowledge. You may exonerate the Papacy or the church itself in such circumstances, but it is entirely reasonable to say that's not good enough. The people were allowed to believe that sins were forgiven by indulgences as well. And then came Luther whose offense was nothing more than asking why this should still be going on!

Mr. Luther's Cum Postquam) "Papal Bull," ie, no 'bull,' and his "Execable Bull of the Antichrist, ie, again, this is no 'bull'. Just ol' old worn out pastured 'bull' Jack. btw has to do with church abuse more in the spiritual sphere than the temporal.

 

[Stryder06]

Who says God is sharing His glory? Only you. Who says he's lying? Only you.

Actually I pointed out that if what you said was true, God would be sharing His glory, and lying. Fortunately what you're saying isn't true so we don't have to worry about that.

I can agree with you about how people apply the faith they've been given. I've never tried to say that Catholics have an automatic halo. In fact, I know a lot of better Christians than many Catholics. I wouldn't give Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi any merit, though that's between them and God. The Church is in serious need of some work, as is the entire body of the Christian Church. Europe is crumbling and America isn't far behind.

No need to disagree on this.

 

[Hentenza]

Regardless of the demeanor of some people in their personal lives, however true or untrue it may be, the Church reformed, and reforms every day.

The demeanor of some people? Jesse I am talking directly about popes, archbishopes, bishops, and priests that exacted countless abuses prior to the reformation (and some after). You can't sweep that under the rug.

When you consider how Luther regretted starting the ball rolling, you have to wonder why he didn't work within the confines of the Church, if he wanted to effect real change.

He did work within the confines of the Catholic church initially. The posting of his 95 theses on the door of the church was working within the confines of the church since that was a common practice. What he was looking for was discussion with those in position of leadership in his area. Instead of discussion he received threats on his life and threats of excommunication.

There were no indulgences being sold by the Church. Never.

lol One example, pope Leo X was involved economically and politically with the powerful house of Hohenzollern which aspired to hegemony in Germany. One of the members of that house, Albert of Brandenburg, already was in possession of two episcopal sees and hoped to acquire the most important archbishoptric in Germany, Mainz. He negotiated with Leo and the result was an agreement whereby for ten thousand ducats Albert could have Mainz. Since the sum was quite large, pope Leo authorized Albert to announce a great sale of indulgences in his territories on condition that half of the proceeds be sent to the papal coffers since one of Leo's dreams was to finish the great Basilica of St. Peter, which he did. The man put in charge of the sale on indulgences in Germany was the Dominican John Tetzel who made some outrageous claims to those who would purchase the indulgences. Some of these outrageous claims that those who purchase indulgences would be "cleaner than when coming out of Baptism," "cleaner than Adam before the fall," etc.

It's not Church doctrine that you can buy your way to heaven.

It was a practice heavily practiced prior to the reformation.

A particular person or group probably suggested that they could, but if that's the case, Luther went to the wrong venue. We know Luther had a problem with being over-scrupulous, among other things.

Luther was not at fault, your church was.

 

[Stryder06]

Throne between two cherubim? Where's that?

You can't be serious. You've never seen the Pope's great white throne with two angels positioned on his left and right side?

And if someone wants to kneel in front of him and kiss his hand, if it gives them comfort, why is that something to take time over?

Because you aren't supposed to do that. Why should that even be comforting to someone, to kiss the hand of a sinner? And please don't act like every person who does that is looking for comfort. It'd be quite disingenuous of you to ignore that many see that as the proper way to greet him.

The "Substitute of Christ", named so by the Holy Spirit, God Himself, does deserve it, though he doesn't demand any such thing. He has no right to demand it.

When did the Holy Ghost name the Pope God's substitute? If Christ promised to never leave nor forsake us, and that where "two or more are gathered" He'd be in the midst thereof, what need is there for a substitute? If we have the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, who if you want to get technical was the only One given as a substitute, what need is there for a man to stand in the gap?

So it's your judgement that all that attention is unwarranted. I believe we all give recognition to something that's unwarranted...Stryder06, what is it, in your life, that gets that unwarranted recognition???

My personal struggles with time management are not the same here, and please don't try to insult my intelligence by acting like it is. The admaration shown to the Pope is ridiculous and it's not my judgement, it's quite easy to see. The only person who ever drew a reaction from a crowd the way the pope does, that I am aware of, was Michael Jackson .

 

[Tzaousios]

I'm not rewriting history. Should we look at the popes for the century before the reformation? How about the abuses on peasants? How about the oppression of the yeoman?

Which just happened to snowball into the abuse and slaughter of priests once the poor peasants got word of the reformation. Then Luther went into damage-control mode but the damage was already done. The slaughter and oppression went both ways; we have been over this before.

 

[Hentenza]

Which just happened to snowball into the abuse and slaughter of priests once the poor peasants got word of the reformation. Then Luther went into damage-control mode but the damage was already done. The slaughter and oppression went both ways; we have been over this before.

Prior to the reformation the oppression came directly from the Catholic church alone or by the state in conjunction with the Catholic church. I agree with you that it went both ways after the reformation.

 

[Tzaousios]

Prior to the reformation the oppression came directly from the Catholic church alone or by the state in conjunction with the Catholic church. I agree with you that it went both ways after the reformation.

You mean to tell me there were NO peasant revolts or rebellion by schismatic and heretical groups from late antiquity to the later middle ages?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Did you have some specific content from the 1967 confession that you believe ought to be in the list?

No I don't, but then I don't have the critical sense for the errors and additions of Protestantism that some here seem to have.

 

[Hentenza]

You mean to tell me there were NO peasant revolts or rebellion by schismatic and heretical groups from late antiquity to the later middle ages?

There were but in response to oppression by the Catholic church. In fact, those that would "revolt" would end up being hanged or burned at the stake with the full blessing of the Catholic church authorities.

You need to look at the history of the peasants and yeomans (the landless) from the Carolingian empire forward to understand the players and reasons involved. Secondly, you need to look at the popes just prior to the reformation to understand the corruption at the top that led to many an oppression perpetrated on the peasantry. I am not saying that the state did not do its own oppression at times but I am saying that most was done either directly by the Catholic Church or as a unity of church and state.

Feudalism, by its very definition, created oppression on the peasant and yeoman classes in Europe and the local leadership of the Catholic Church served as feudal lords quite frequently. The upper class in England, France, Germany, etc. had an interest in ecclesiastical seats because it would bring fortune and power, hence, the problem of simony that so plagued the Catholic church during these times. Bishops and archbishops that became feudal lords did want to relinquish the power and fortune that accompanied such a status and many local wars were fought to protect such a status. This is evident in many a history book and in the extant textual evidence from the time.

 

[Tzaousios]

You need to look at the history of the peasants and yeomans (the landless) from the Carolingian empire forward to understand the players and reasons involved. Secondly, you need to look at the popes just prior to the reformation to understand the corruption at the top that led to many an oppression perpetrated on the peasantry. I am not saying that the state did not do its own oppression at times but I am saying that most was done either directly by the Catholic Church or as a unity of church and state.

"You need to look up..." Please do not patronize me. I have already done so and understand that this is the interpretation you have made on what you looked up. However, no amount of corruption or oppression necessitated the response that led to an even more destructive and bloody conflict in the Thirty Years War.

Feudalism, by its very definition, created oppression on the peasant and yeoman classes in Europe and the local leadership of the Catholic Church served as feudal lords quite frequently.

No, not by definition, but in certain places it did lead to things that you have described. But you cannot make a sweeping generalization on the development of feudalism in all regions of Europe. I would suggest, beyond what is requited to maintain rhetorical points, if you are interested, to read some of the more recent scholarship on feudalism that has modified traditional historiography in different ways.