Realitybites said:

---

Then your faith is in vain, for until Gutenberg came along, wholesale distribution of said scripture was impossible...and even if it was possible, few could read it.

Historical Literacy Rates

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/estimated-historical-literacy-rates

Christ did not abandon the Church he founded for 1400 years.

---

The fact that the bible wasn't mass printed or that literacy wasn't common for centuries has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that without Scripture, the original faith can't be known by us today, or by any generation before us for that matter.

It amazes me how often non sequiturs like this are employed as arguments in this thread.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

]Protestants aren't "children of Zwingli and Calvin", they are believers in church reform whenever the church departs from Scripture, Scripture being the only infallible authority for faith and doctrine. They are children of God's word.

---

Roman Catholics didn't exist before 1054 AD.

---

That's a bit like saying Mexico didn't exist before 1836.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your concept of what the "church" is, is wrong. Your concept of church infallibility is wrong. If you can't see that the Roman Catholic practice of making people pay money to the Church in order to get them or others out of "purgatory" (i.e. indulgences) was a ridiculous and shameful, even EVIL departure from God's word and the gospel of Jesus Christ, thus completely justifying the Reformation, then you just aren't alilgned with God. But that was already clear by your inability to see how you worship and idolize Mary. If you can't see that this isn't Jesus' true church, then you are spiritually blind and deceived.

---

Once again you're posting falsehoods and myths about the Church. The Church NEVER allowed that. That is NOT how indulgences work. You constantly post these lies when you have no basis for your arguments. It's sad. Are you related to Jack Chick?

---

You don't seem to have any knowledge of basic facts in church history about the Reformation. Either that, or you're in desperation mode, trying to throw anything out there in the hopes that it'll stick.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Once again, please understand what the Nestorian heresy is before you accuse others of it. This is three times now you've gotten it wrong, and instead of doing the intellectually honest thing, you've tripled down on it.

---

I know what the Nestorian heresy contains. But you have denied that Mary is the "Theotokos," God-bearer. Sounds pretty heretical to me.

---

Denying that Mary is the "Theotokos" is not the Nestorian heresy. You are just trying to make the false association. You are intellectually dishonest.

You say it's heretical. Ok, then answer the question - is Mary the "bearer" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, i.e. God? If you say no, then you're saying Mary is not the "bearer" of God, and you are heretical by your own standard. If you say "yes", well, then that's a heresy all it's own.

---

Is Jesus God? If you say "no" then that's a heresy. If you say "yes" then you agree that Mary is "Theotokos". Welcome to the team!

---

Yes, Jesus is God. But no, Mary is not "Theotokos". She is not the "bearer" of God. She is not the bearer of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Mary is the bearer of the Son in his human form. The Son has been in existence for eternity with the Father (John 1:1) but was not in his human form until he became flesh. Mary was not the bearer of the eternal Son.

It's very simple. No heresy here.

For you, on the other hand, the problem of calling Mary the mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit remains.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Roman Catholicism: "Yes, we pray to her, sings hymns to her, kiss pictures and statues of her, bow to statues of her, constantly think of her, say her name ten times as much as we say God's name, hold hundreds of festivals for her every year, and consider her a glorified being in heaven to whom we make supplications.......

....... but no, no, it's all about JESUS, not Mary! Get that through your thick skull!"

---

I guess that protestants shouldn't sign songs about Moses, Joseph, Joshua, angels, etc. either.

Once again, you twist what you don't understand because it doesn't fit your biases. You have to keep resulting to this. I and several others have mentioned that there is nothing wrong about kissing a picture - i.e. kissing a picture or likeness of a spouse. Bowing - I took a knee to asked my wife's hand in marriage. Nothing says that I am worshiping her.

I say my wife's names many times a day. It doesn't mean that I'm worshiping her.

Our country holds festivals MLK, Presidents' Day, Authors, Historical Figures, etc. It doesn't mean that we worship them.

---

"I guess that protestants shouldn't sign songs about Moses, Joseph, Joshua, angels, etc. either."

.....No, we can sing songs about them, but not TO them, and especially not HYMNS in CHURCH. And we can't in addition pray to them, have images and statues of them that we bow to and kiss, hold hundreds of festivals a year for them, or consider them a glorified being to whom we petition. Because then that'd be worship.



"...there is nothing wrong about kissing a picture - i.e. kissing a picture or likeness of a spouse. Bowing - I took a knee to asked my wife's hand in marriage."

......But are you bowing to and kissing them or their image with the belief they are glorified beings to whom you spiritually petition for salvation, and also praying to them, singing hymns to them in church, and holding hundreds of festivals every year for them?


"I say my wife's names many times a day."

......But are you praying to her, bowing to and kissing her image or statue in church, holding hundreds of festivals a year for her, and holding her as a glorified being to whom you petition for salvation? Do you call her "Queen"? Do you call her "sovereign", "salvation of the universe", and do you "place your salvation in her hands"? Is she your "mediatrix"?


"Our country holds festivals MLK, Presidents' Day, Authors, Historical Figures, etc"

......But do we hold hundreds of festivals all year for them, pray to them, bow to and kiss their image in church, or consider them glorified beings in heaven to whom we petition for salvation? And do we take out Jesus and God in the Psalms and insert them in their place?



Can you finally get it??

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Catholic" just means "universal". It means the total body of believers in Jesus. It most certainly does NOT mean the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is an apostate Christianity that compromised with pagan god and goddess worship. That is a historical fact. It perpetually distorts the gospel and promotes heresy and idolatry by building itself on the very false concepts of church infallibility and infallible non-Scriptural tradition. One only has to read the constant warnings from the apostle Paul and Jesus in the New Testament about heresies and false gospels entering the church to know that those concepts are completely false.

---

Please cite ONE official, legitimate historical source that states that Catholicism comes is "compromised with pagan god and goddess worship." You don't have to result to ad hominem attacks and lies on the Church just because your "church" has no authority or historical basis.

---

It's an established understanding of historians. I gave you an excerpt earlier from Calvin who had a great understanding of church history. Ramsay MacMullen was an Emeritus Professor of History from Yale University who studied this very topic. In his book, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, he describes the situation in fourth-fifth century Rome after Constantine made Christianity the official religion and removed pagan temples and banned pagan worship culture. Except it wasn't completely banned, and certain rites and ceremonies such as the ones involving the dead persisted, and even started to infiltrate the practice of Christians in that time. MacMullen's study revealed that even though such pagan practices were frowned upon by church fathers, they found it impractical, even impossible, to completely forbid Christians from partaking in them. So they often acquiesced by allowing a "Christian" form of it, such as instead of petitioning the pagan gods, they could petition Christian martyrs and saints.

Here is an excerpt:

"The creed that was the true heart of the Christian community in the first centruy of two of its existence was retained untouched by the inflow of new members after Constantine. Church organization, too, showed no effects. But in the ideas and rites just described a large area of new loyalties opened up. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their "mother," while what he himself would teach them was "the father." They must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship. At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome made the same acknowledgement: better, worship of the saints in the pagan manner than none at all."

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

]Protestants aren't "children of Zwingli and Calvin", they are believers in church reform whenever the church departs from Scripture, Scripture being the only infallible authority for faith and doctrine. They are children of God's word.

---

Roman Catholics didn't exist before 1054 AD.

---

That's a bit like saying Mexico didn't exist before 1836.

---

Yeah, the Catholic Church started with Constantine.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

]Protestants aren't "children of Zwingli and Calvin", they are believers in church reform whenever the church departs from Scripture, Scripture being the only infallible authority for faith and doctrine. They are children of God's word.

---

Roman Catholics didn't exist before 1054 AD.

---

That's a bit like saying Mexico didn't exist before 1836.

---

Yeah, the Catholic Church started with Constantine.

---

That admission would mean the Catholic Church started in 30AD

No,not at all.

There is so much arrogance from the RC members here.

Jesus was not a Protestant or a Roman Catholic or Orthodox or any of that, and I doubt He would approve of the spirit prevailing here in this thread.

Quote:

---

The fact that the bible wasn't mass printed or that literacy wasn't common for centuries has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that without Scripture, the original faith

---

You need to think about the implications of what you say. What you're saying is that for the first 1500 years of Christianity, the majority of people on earth had no way of knowing what the original Christian faith was about.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

]Protestants aren't "children of Zwingli and Calvin", they are believers in church reform whenever the church departs from Scripture, Scripture being the only infallible authority for faith and doctrine. They are children of God's word.

---

Roman Catholics didn't exist before 1054 AD.

---

That's a bit like saying Mexico didn't exist before 1836.

---

Precisely. The nation of Mexico didn't exist before 1836. The nation of the United States of America didn't exist before 1776. The RCC as an institution didn't exist before 1054.

This isn't to say that the land mass wasn't there or there weren't people living in these places - or that there were no churches or Christians in Rome. Obviously there were.

Quite the jump, conflating "there were Christians in Rome" to "Rome represents all Christian thought and history prior to Luther".

A little less Pride would serve you better here, brother.

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

]Protestants aren't "children of Zwingli and Calvin", they are believers in church reform whenever the church departs from Scripture, Scripture being the only infallible authority for faith and doctrine. They are children of God's word.

---

Roman Catholics didn't exist before 1054 AD.

---

That's a bit like saying Mexico didn't exist before 1836.

---

Yeah, the Catholic Church started with Constantine.

---

That admission would mean the Catholic Church started in 30AD

---

^^^^
And this is the guy that called me a "dolt".

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

The fact that the bible wasn't mass printed or that literacy wasn't common for centuries has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that without Scripture, the original faith

---

You need to think about the implications of what you say. What you're saying is that for the first 1500 years of Christianity, the majority of people on earth had no way of knowing what the original Christian faith was about.

---

They had to depend on those who could, to tell them.

Still, that has NOTHING to do with the fact that Scripture was the only way to know what the original faith was. You're just not thinking critically. You're only trying to defend your flawed position by throwing arguments out there.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Roman Catholicism: "Yes, we pray to her, sings hymns to her, kiss pictures and statues of her, bow to statues of her, constantly think of her, say her name ten times as much as we say God's name, hold hundreds of festivals for her every year, and consider her a glorified being in heaven to whom we make supplications.......

....... but no, no, it's all about JESUS, not Mary! Get that through your thick skull!"

---

In a previous post you stated that the Marian apparitions always direct attention to Mary. I stated that this was false. At the Our Lady of Fatima apparitions, on June 13, 1917, our Lady gave us the Fatima prayer that all Catholics say at the end of each decade of the rosary:

"O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who are most in need."

Mary gave us that in an apparition. It was all about Jesus.

---

But YOU KNOW that's not all what the apparition was claimed to have said. You know this, yet you think you can just throw your lie out there, as if no one could ever look it up. It is quite perplexing.

Here is what else the apparition said, according to www.fatima.org:

"Another principal part of the Message of Fatima is devotion to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, which is terribly outraged and offended by the sins of humanity, and we are lovingly urged to console Her by making reparation. She showed Her Heart, surrounded by piercing thorns (which represented the sins against Her Immaculate Heart), to the children, who understood that their sacrifices could help to console Her."

"To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace."

"God wants us to have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to work to spread this devotion throughout the world. Our Lady said, 'My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.' If we wish to go to God, we have a sure way to Him through true devotion to the Immaculate Heart of His Mother."


All about Jesus, huh? If you can't see how plainly Satanic this is, then you are so tremendously deceived.

I struggle with history being arrogance. I'm sure some of that comment was directed at me. I'm trying to keep it to a factual discussion around interpretations and not a "this group is going to hell" Type discussion I've seen many in this thread engage in.

I don't know how God will sort it out so I'll leave that to Him (and Mary….i keed I keed)

I am very comfortable with the history of the Catholic Church dating back to the beginning and their multi millennia of contributions to human society. It is still in fact led by men which of course comes with the various short comings of man

Admittedly I don't get the 1054 thing someone is espousing but if that works for them, so be it. It's untrue and not based in fact but if it works to fit their narrative I won't lose a wink over it

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your concept of what the "church" is, is wrong. Your concept of church infallibility is wrong. If you can't see that the Roman Catholic practice of making people pay money to the Church in order to get them or others out of "purgatory" (i.e. indulgences) was a ridiculous and shameful, even EVIL departure from God's word and the gospel of Jesus Christ, thus completely justifying the Reformation, then you just aren't alilgned with God. But that was already clear by your inability to see how you worship and idolize Mary. If you can't see that this isn't Jesus' true church, then you are spiritually blind and deceived.

---

Once again you're posting falsehoods and myths about the Church. The Church NEVER allowed that. That is NOT how indulgences work. You constantly post these lies when you have no basis for your arguments. It's sad. Are you related to Jack Chick?

---

You don't seem to have any knowledge of basic facts in church history about the Reformation. Either that, or you're in desperation mode, trying to throw anything out there in the hopes that it'll stick.

---

Please post an official Catholic doctrine that allowed for people paying "money to the Church in order to get them or others out of "purgatory."" If you can, I'll post an immediate apology.


I know what happened during the protestant rebellion. It is you who is "in desperation mode." The Truth is on the side of the Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, Jesus is God. But no, Mary is not "Theotokos". She is not the "bearer" of God. She is not the bearer of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Mary is the bearer of the Son in his human form. The Son has been in existence for eternity with the Father (John 1:1) but was not in his human form until he became flesh. Mary was not the bearer of the eternal Son.

It's very simple. No heresy here.

For you, on the other hand, the problem of calling Mary the mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit remains.

---

I, nor the Catholic Church, have ever stated that Mary was the mother of "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

Mary is not only the mother of Jesus' human form; she is the Mother of God. This title is rooted in the understanding that Jesus is both fully God and fully man.

She carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, who is God. This is affirmed by the Church Fathers.

Mary gave person to a person, not just a human form or nature. This aligns with the doctrine of the hypostatic union, which teaches that Jesus' divine and human natures are united in one person.

By denying this you are denying the hypostatic union which is heresy.

John 1:14 says, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth".

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

]Protestants aren't "children of Zwingli and Calvin", they are believers in church reform whenever the church departs from Scripture, Scripture being the only infallible authority for faith and doctrine. They are children of God's word.

---

Roman Catholics didn't exist before 1054 AD.

---

That's a bit like saying Mexico didn't exist before 1836.

---

Yeah, the Catholic Church started with Constantine.

---

This statement is embarrassing for you to make with the minds that are on this forum. Please do some basis research. At least ask Google or Duck, Duck Go, if your statement was correct.

Ask Siri "who founded the Catholic Church?"

Then ask "who founded the Baptist church?"

And report back

The church universal has trouble with the Trinity in a Monotheistic based theology. The church thought it was right in the Nicene Creed but only after trying to stamp Arianism as heretical. It was the Catholic Church decision.

Arianism, Christian heresy that declared that Christ is not truly divine but a created being. According to the Alexandrian presbyter Arius (4th century), God alone is immutable and self-existent, and the Son is not God but a creature with a beginning.

Nicene Cree or Arianism? Doctrinal heresy is always difficult theological decision. Note the debate about Mary between Coke B and Busy D. Busy D believes Coke Bear is a heretic.

To me doctrine ought to deepen one's faith, one's love of God, neighbor and self and further their spiritual discipleship. journey.
I do not doubt the faith of Coke B nor Busy D but I disagree with their doctrine

Quote:

---

Rome represents all Christian thought and history prior to Luther".

---

It absolutely did not.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your concept of what the "church" is, is wrong. Your concept of church infallibility is wrong. If you can't see that the Roman Catholic practice of making people pay money to the Church in order to get them or others out of "purgatory" (i.e. indulgences) was a ridiculous and shameful, even EVIL departure from God's word and the gospel of Jesus Christ, thus completely justifying the Reformation, then you just aren't alilgned with God. But that was already clear by your inability to see how you worship and idolize Mary. If you can't see that this isn't Jesus' true church, then you are spiritually blind and deceived.

---

Once again you're posting falsehoods and myths about the Church. The Church NEVER allowed that. That is NOT how indulgences work. You constantly post these lies when you have no basis for your arguments. It's sad. Are you related to Jack Chick?

---

You don't seem to have any knowledge of basic facts in church history about the Reformation. Either that, or you're in desperation mode, trying to throw anything out there in the hopes that it'll stick.

---

Please post an official Catholic doctrine that allowed for people paying "money to the Church in order to get them or others out of "purgatory."" If you can, I'll post an immediate apology.


I know what happened during the protestant rebellion. It is you who is "in desperation mode." The Truth is on the side of the Church.

---

De jure vs. de facto. "Do as I say, not as I do".

Written or not, the policy of Pope Leo X was to give indulgences to anyone who donated money to build St. Peter's basilica. Historical fact. Indulgences were given also to anyone who would fight in the Crusades. Blood for less time in purgatory!

Ahh, but maybe you think the Church put a stop to all that. I guess reform of Jesus' "infallible" church was needed after all. But did such a laughable abuse of Jesus' gospel really stop? Maybe you approve of, instead, the most recent rendition of it - when Pope Francis gave indulgences to anyone who followed him on Twitter.

Folks, I'm not kidding about that one. To make such a mockery of Jesus' gospel is utterly despicable. You are straining yourself really hard in defending the indefensible.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, Jesus is God. But no, Mary is not "Theotokos". She is not the "bearer" of God. She is not the bearer of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Mary is the bearer of the Son in his human form. The Son has been in existence for eternity with the Father (John 1:1) but was not in his human form until he became flesh. Mary was not the bearer of the eternal Son.

It's very simple. No heresy here.

For you, on the other hand, the problem of calling Mary the mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit remains.

---

I, nor the Catholic Church, have ever stated that Mary was the mother of "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

---

Then you're denying that Mary was the mother of God.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Rome represents all Christian thought and history prior to Luther".

---

It absolutely did not.

---

That's the gist of the pointy-hat fanboys here.

That's not helping set a collegial tone.

"The Truth is on the side of the Church."

Indeed, just not the Romans nor the Baptists nor the Lutherans, et cetera.


The debate has devolved since I suggested we seek a better topic.

Did Mary assume Bodily into Heaven?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Did Mary assume Bodily into Heaven?

---

No. That is why the church of the first millenium remembers the Dormition of the Theotokos on August 15th.

This ancient icon shows her falling asleep in the Lord as we all do.



The bodily Assumption of Mary into heaven was declared a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church by Pope Pius XII in 1950 AD, 75 years ago this year.

Sheesh! You guys are so much more knowledgeable than average church members like me. My reasoning is more simple. Realizing that our ability to reason is limited, I get stuck on if she was the mother of all three in one, why does Christ converse with them as separate entities? Why does He instruct us to address them separately?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I am asking how you guys explain what we don't know/understand. Please don't get offended, I am just someone trying to grasp a scrap that fell from the table.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Roman Catholicism: "Yes, we pray to her, sings hymns to her, kiss pictures and statues of her, bow to statues of her, constantly think of her, say her name ten times as much as we say God's name, hold hundreds of festivals for her every year, and consider her a glorified being in heaven to whom we make supplications.......

....... but no, no, it's all about JESUS, not Mary! Get that through your thick skull!"

---

In a previous post you stated that the Marian apparitions always direct attention to Mary. I stated that this was false. At the Our Lady of Fatima apparitions, on June 13, 1917, our Lady gave us the Fatima prayer that all Catholics say at the end of each decade of the rosary:

"O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who are most in need."

Mary gave us that in an apparition. It was all about Jesus.

---

But YOU KNOW that's not all what the apparition was claimed to have said. You know this, yet you think you can just throw your lie out there, as if no one could ever look it up. It is quite perplexing.

Here is what else the apparition said, according to www.fatima.org:

"Another principal part of the Message of Fatima is devotion to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, which is terribly outraged and offended by the sins of humanity, and we are lovingly urged to console Her by making reparation. She showed Her Heart, surrounded by piercing thorns (which represented the sins against Her Immaculate Heart), to the children, who understood that their sacrifices could help to console Her."

"To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace."

"God wants us to have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to work to spread this devotion throughout the world. Our Lady said, 'My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.' If we wish to go to God, we have a sure way to Him through true devotion to the Immaculate Heart of His Mother."


All about Jesus, huh? If you can't see how plainly Satanic this is, then you are so tremendously deceived.

---

You still can't grasp that it all leads to Jesus. All the devotion was private revelation for them. These poor, young shepherd children (Lucia - 10, Jacinta - 7, & Francisco - 9) all began prayer, reparation, repentance, and sacrifice, and the abandonment of sin.

Our Lady of Fatima showed them visions of Hell and Purgatory. They prayed for the souls in Purgatory and for those on earth so that they would not go to hell.

Jacinta and Fransisco died of illness shortly after the apparitions. Lucia became a Carmelite nun.

Doesn't sound like a message from the devil.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, Jesus is God. But no, Mary is not "Theotokos". She is not the "bearer" of God. She is not the bearer of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Mary is the bearer of the Son in his human form. The Son has been in existence for eternity with the Father (John 1:1) but was not in his human form until he became flesh. Mary was not the bearer of the eternal Son.

It's very simple. No heresy here.

For you, on the other hand, the problem of calling Mary the mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit remains.

---

I, nor the Catholic Church, have ever stated that Mary was the mother of "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

---

Then you're denying that Mary was the mother of God.

---

Nope.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Written or not, the policy of Pope Leo X was to give indulgences to anyone who donated money to build St. Peter's basilica. Historical fact. Indulgences were given also to anyone who would fight in the Crusades. Blood for less time in purgatory!

---

It is a good thing to give moneys to God? Yes. So you are criticizing the Church for giving indulgences for helping build an amazingly beautiful Basilica dedicated to God that has lasted 500 years that ALL Christians go to visit?

With respect to the Crusades, these brave men were embarking on a dangerous mission to help take back the Holy Lands, generally paid for the trip themselves to help rescue and defend the Christians being killed in the Holy Lands.

So YES, indulgences were offered to men willing to pay for and risk their lives to protect others.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Ahh, but maybe you think the Church put a stop to all that. I guess reform of Jesus' "infallible" church was needed after all. But did such a laughable abuse of Jesus' gospel really stop? Maybe you approve of, instead, the most recent rendition of it - when Pope Francis gave indulgences to anyone who followed him on Twitter.

Folks, I'm not kidding about that one. To make such a mockery of Jesus' gospel is utterly despicable. You are straining yourself really hard in defending the indefensible.

---

Pope Francis did not give indulgences for following him on Twitter. However, in 2013, the Vatican announced that indulgences could be granted to those who participated in World Youth Day events, including through social media, provided they met the usual conditions: sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion, and prayer for the Pope's intentions.

It is amazing how you believe what is written in secular media. Do you watch a great deal of CNN?

If you are going to comment about the Church, please use official sources.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The Truth is on the side of the Church."

Indeed, just not the Romans nor the Baptists nor the Lutherans, et cetera.


The debate has devolved since I suggested we seek a better topic.

---

Catholic are not "Romans". We're Catholic; whether it be the Latin (Western), Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, or Chaldean rite.

We say, without arrogance or pride, that the Catholic Church contains fullness of truth because it believes it was founded by Jesus Christ, who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).

It doesn't mean that all other are 100? wrong? No indeed. Many of the true Christian denominations, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. contain MANY elements of the truth.

Even Judaism and Islam have elements of truth. Both of them are monotheistic, Abrahamic faiths. Of course, our Jewish brothers and sisters have the benefit of the OT.

Finally, what topic would you propose that we next discuss?

BUDOS said:

---

Sheesh! You guys are so much more knowledgeable than average church members like me. My reasoning is more simple. Realizing that our ability to reason is limited, I get stuck on if she was the mother of all three in one, why does Christ converse with them as separate entities? Why does He instruct us to address them separately?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I am asking how you guys explain what we don't know/understand. Please don't get offended, I am just someone trying to grasp a scrap that fell from the table.

---

You're NOT saying I'm wrong. You're agreeing with me. Mary is NOT the mother of God, nor the "bearer" of God.

Regarding Jesus addressing them as separate entities - remember that he still said he is "one" with the Father. He told the disciples that if they see him, they've seen the Father. He told the Pharisees that if you know him, you know the Father.

It's clear that even though Jesus addresses the Father separately and tells us to do the same, he considers himself the same as the Father. It's a mystery, much like how light has properties of both a wave and a particle. We don't know how, we just know that it does, and we accept it. We do the same for God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.