DescentBB

Let me clarify: I said the selling of indulgences. To explain what an indulgence is would take quite a lot of time. I have a feeling that you don't quite understand it. I think one of my links had something on that.

DCrazy, no they just clarified those dogmas. That's the purpose of those councils. Clarification. They don't invent anything new.

"The pope during the time of the indulgence controversy was Leo X , who was pope from 1513-1521. He was the one who decided to begin selling indulgences once again in order to cover the money borrowed to build St. Peterâ??s Basilica" - Link

I concede it may not have been right to sell indulgences, but it wasn't a few priests or bishops, it was from the Pope's authorization.

Kd, you're talking to someone who has been in Catholic school for 12 years and taken theology for 4. I'm not an uneducated ingrate.

Pope Leo X had that authority. It was to raise funds for building up the basilica. Read Matthew 16:18-19. [FYI Peter means "Rock". You'll find that in any baby naming book.]

Now the priests I was talking about were abusing their authority.

Kd527 wrote:As I stated earlier, the selling of indulgences was condemned by the Church! That doesn't mean that some bishops weren't doing it, but they were not supposed to.

Kd527 wrote:Pope Leo X had that authority. It was to raise funds for building up the basilica. Read Matthew 16:18-19. [FYI Peter means "Rock". You'll find that in any baby naming book.]

Now the priests I was talking about were abusing their authority.

So, the Church condemns it, but the Pope has the authority to allow it? Sorry, the doesn't make much sense, you need to explain yourself a bit better. How are the priest's abusing authority if the Pope authorized the selling of indulgences?

And what does Peter being the rock of the church have anything to do with the selling of indulgences? Yes, the cathedral was named after him, but him being the Rock and raising funds through indulgences seem to be two totally unrelated points.

The pope is Peter's successor. (I've got somewhere a list of all the popes from him.) He was the first pope. We have that history.

The Church condemned the bishops and priests abusing their power. They weren't supposed to be selling indulgences without permission and especially not for their own gain.

Here's a link that will hopefully explain what indulgences are.

Kd is running around in circles spounting contradictory dogma. First they didnt condone it, then the pope authorized it, blah blah blah.

How about some straight talk, Kd, where you say one thing and stick to it?

Kd527 wrote:The pope is Peter's successor. (I've got somewhere a list of all the popes from him.) He was the first pope. We have that history.

The Church condemned the bishops and priests abusing their power. They weren't supposed to be selling indulgences without permission and especially not for their own gain.

Here's a link that will hopefully explain what indulgences are.

Thank you for taking the time to repost the same article I posted here.

Now, I know what an indulgence is. You, however, have yet to explain how "The Church", which is represented in it's entirety by The Pope, condemns selling indulgences for money, when The Pope (the head of The Church, right?) Leo X authorized the sale of indulgences to build a cathedral.

You have repeatedly claimed that the priests/bishops were condemned. However, what I recall is something called The Protestant Reformation which ends with Martin Luther being condemned/excommunicated for bring up the abuse. Where is your source about the priests? I will leave the researching to you unless you so desire me to post more articles about it than I already have.

And to think I fired the spark that started this whole mess!

*awards himself a gold star*

Dont mind me, I reside in the peanut gallery now.

The pope was building up the Church. The sins were already forgiven, and the donating of the money was for a change of heart. The priests that were abusing their power were trying to make a profit for themselves. Does this help?

Kd527 wrote:The pope was building up the Church. The sins were already forgiven, and the donating of the money was for a change of heart. The priests that were abusing their power were trying to make a profit for themselves. Does this help?

Not really. So the sins were already forgiven...so it was ok to continue benifiting from them if they were sins to begin with?

An indulgence is making restitution for the wrong that one has done. So it's not profitting from someone else's sin.

How was the church not profiting? I can understand if all the money was throwing into some bottomless pit, or destroyed in some way, but the church kept all of it.

Sshhh, you're not supposed to ask critical questions. They don't like it. I thought you understood that.

I'm a Catholic myself, but I've become completely lost by the back-and-forth banter, so I'm just going to make a general statement here. Like any human institution, the Catholic Church is subject to the flaws inherent in humanity. Yes, the Church has made mistakes in the past. Among these are the tortures of the Inquisition and the corruption in the Middle Ages involving power-hungry bishops, indulgences, and the like. I will admit that, in the past, the Church has not always lived up to its own standards. However, I will say that things are much different now than they were in those times. I will even go so far to say that the Church is one of the most influential forces for social justice in today's world, in both its doctrine and its charitable actions. True, the Church sinned in the past, but its leadership today should not be held accountable for the mistakes of centuries ago. I hope that everyone can be held in agreement on that point. A similar stance would be blaming Bush for injustices against Native Americans in the early 1900s.

Kd, I appreciate the points you're trying to make in your argument, but you have to be very sure of yourself, as well as able to back up your facts, when you post on this board. I've been burnt several times in the past when my wording doesn't match up with my intent. Just a friendly warning .

Topher, Martin Luther wasn't excommunicated simply for bringing corruption to light. It was because of his statements against Church doctrine, namely that the Bible was the sole source of religious truth. (I believe this is referred to as the sola scriptura principle.) This contradicts the Catholic belief that Church Tradition, the truths of the faith from the earliest Church leaders passed down through the hierarchy of bishops to the present day, is of equal importance. This includes such doctrine as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, the transubstantiation of bread and wine during the Eucharist, and the role of the Pope as the spiritual leader of the Church on earth and the successor of Peter. (Note that, while Marian doctrines like the Assumption and Immaculate Conception were formalized within the past 150 years, they were not first proposed then, as some Protestants claim. These doctrines can be found in the earliest Christian writings and have been adhered to for many centuries.) Since Luther denied this authority of the Church hierarchy, he was excommunicated. With regard to the corruption, many influential Church leaders addressed this within the Church, in a period commonly referred to as the Counter-Reformation, meant to combat the Protestant splitting. This proved that it was not necessary to break away from the Church in order to fix its flaws.

Actually, Dedman, asking intelligent, even critical, questions about one's faith is the real key to having a deeper understanding of faith. By asking such questions, one learns the truths behind the principles of one's faith and has a greater understanding of it. This is true not only of Catholicism but of most faiths in general. This disproves the belief of those who are religious as "mindless sheep." Personally, I gained a much greater understanding of my own faith in a theology course in my junior year of high school, taught by a very knowledgable priest who explained the roots of Catholic doctrine. Asking questions was encouraged in his class; in fact, I learned a great deal from such questions.

I hope that this post has helped clear up a few misconceptions. There are many things I myself don't fully know about my own faith, so I apologize if some of the above statements seem muddled or unclear. I just want to get rid of some of the misconceptions about my faith .

Top Gun, I actually meant no disrespect with my earlier statement even though it was somewhat tongue and cheek. However, it has been my experience that questions of ones faith and the beliefs thereof were discouraged.

I went to a private Christian school from kindergarten through the 2nd grade. As you can imagine, kids that young are full of questions. Mine were always on the order of â??If Jesus is godâ??s son and Jesus is god, is Jesus his own son or are there two Gods?â?

Sounds like you had some crappy elementary school teachers . Obviously, kids of that age aren't able to understand higher theological principles, but you still deserved a better answer than "don't ask questions." As for JWs....well, I've heard some weird things about them, and the whole door-to-door evangelizing thing seems a little strange. I'm not too surprised about that. I was fortunate enough not to have to deal with that sort of response when asking questions. Even a simple, "You'll understand it better as you get older" would have been better.

That question about "where did God come from" is a question Ive posed to myself a lot of times. By comparison, if you believe in te big bang, you could ask where did all that supercompressed matter come from that resulted in the big bang?

The reality is we dont know, and we may not ever know. If I get to heaven, I definatly look forward to hearing God's take on these things.

Zuruck wrote:why do you hate America so much Jeff?

Even if I didn't agree with Bush's policies, I think I'd still vote for him just to spite you liberal weenies.

Thank you Top Gun! Yeah, I can see how my points were hard to follow. I know it tho, so most of it makes sense to me, but...