Roman Catholics Believe in 'Plenary Indulgences,' but . . .

balshan

Well-known member
My, my, did I strike a nerve, or what? What Theo wrote is nothing? So, why is it okay for RCCers to criticize our faith, but we cannot criticize yours? Aren't you criticizing our faith right now? Double standard much? But we criticize the many false, man-made teachings your church has made doctrines, thus worshiping God in vain. Not our fault there are so many.
excellent point
 

Stella1000

Well-known member
My, my, did I strike a nerve, or what? What Theo wrote is nothing? Is that what you mean?
No my, my. I think you have taken it personally when I was addressing the substance of the post. He is assuming from the start that someone 'claiming' to have faith is somehow distinguishable from someone who has faith to explain James 2. Then says that works justify. But my question is how is that measured in a way that gives eternal certainty? It's a meaningless explanation.

What job God may not have done are you referring to?
When a doctrine states that you have zero input into the gift of faith. That it is all the work of God,,, by what excuse do you have to call out the faith of other people? It's not their fault in your doctrine, that they aren't good enough for you.

So, why is it okay for RCCers to criticize our faith, but we cannot criticize yours? Aren't you criticizing our faith right now? Double standard much? But we criticize the many false, man-made teachings your church has made doctrines, thus worshiping God in vain. Not our fault there are so many.
This is not tit for tat. I'm not being personal. In Catholic doctrine faith calls us to co operate with Gods grace, to strive to improve, to actively reject sinful inclinations and to actively imitate the Saints as a guide. We have a measure that is meaningful and a reason to engage others for our own or for their edification. We have a preserved tradition going right back to the Apostles, of believing we become involved faithful in a communion of saints being there for each other, teaching, correcting, inviting. We don't believe in a doctrine that says we have no input to our own faith which by default means that attacking others on that point is literally pointless. All it is doing is attacking the God who did all the work in a person.
 

A new day

Well-known member
No my, my. I think you have taken it personally when I was addressing the substance of the post.

Stella1000 said:
This is not tit for tat. I'm not being personal.

And let me remind you about what the administer said to you specifically when you played victim not long ago. The quote below was addressed to YOU by the administer. So before you mock, you might want to remember this.

NO ONE is targeting you. This is an internet discussion board and anyone can respond to you. If you are so thinned skinned that you think a response to you is 'targeting' maybe an internet discussion board isn't the place for you. Don't ever again accuse posters of targeting you simply for responding to your posts. And if YOU get banned, it's because YOU broke the rules.
 

Stella1000

Well-known member
And let me remind you about what the administer said to you specifically when you played victim not long ago. The quote below was addressed to YOU by the administer. So before you mock, you might want to remember this.
Are you a moderator or something?

Carm rules No. 4.
  1. Do not discuss a forum poster on the discussion boards/messages/chat, and do not attempt to moderate a forum poster’s correct behaviors. Stick to the topic of discussion.
 

A new day

Well-known member
Catholic doctrine faith calls us to co operate with Gods grace,

Only the rcc tells you this. Scripture does NOT. It says to "believe in the one He sent" Neither does Scripture tell us to only believe "initially" and then the rest is up to you to fix yourself. Jesus gave us an example of this

Luke 18:10-14
"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."


Jesus said the tax collector went home justified before God. The pharisee was not, even though the pharisee did all the "right" works, he still was NOT justified before God. Rc's love to quote the last half of verse 21 from Matthew 7, while removing the fact in the next verse that the "many" Jesus was speaking of, did "good works" all in Jesus' name. And yet in verse 23 He says He never knew them in spite of all their good works.

Matthew 7:22-23
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Jesus called them evil doers, because they refused to obey God and thus trust Him completely.

Jesus told us what God's will was and what He wanted us to do in regard to salvation. But also, it is pointless to do all sorts of good works and religious works and not know Jesus personally. There must be a regeneration of the human spirit, ( be born again from above) that only Jesus can provide, and until that happens we humans can NOT even begin to know Him on a personal level. God wants us to fellowship with Him and develop a personal relationship with Him.

John 3:3
Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

John 6:29
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
 

A new day

Well-known member
No my, my. I think you have taken it personally

The above statement has a tone to it that certainly carries the impression of tit for tat in spite of the attempt to say otherwise in another sentence. The rules apply equally to everybody, not just some people who disagree with you on topics. You want us non-rc's to follow sites rules, but then excuse yourself from the same rules. Doesn't work like that.
It's worded to mean nothing. It's benign and doesn't serve as any sort of positive inspiration. It doesn't explain what the point of criticising others faith serves? If faith and works are completely the work of God, wouldn't criticising others faith in fact be a slap in the face of our God because He didn't do His job?

What apologetics is not, is proselytizing. Apologetics is debating. And that is what this forum is for.... apologetics. The very purpose of apologetics is for you to come up with rational and mature responses against the objections people bring up. Not get offended and post tit for tats because someone said something you didn't like.
 

balshan

Well-known member
No my, my. I think you have taken it personally when I was addressing the substance of the post. He is assuming from the start that someone 'claiming' to have faith is somehow distinguishable from someone who has faith to explain James 2. Then says that works justify. But my question is how is that measured in a way that gives eternal certainty? It's a meaningless explanation.


When a doctrine states that you have zero input into the gift of faith. That it is all the work of God,,, by what excuse do you have to call out the faith of other people? It's not their fault in your doctrine, that they aren't good enough for you.


This is not tit for tat. I'm not being personal. In Catholic doctrine faith calls us to co operate with Gods grace, to strive to improve, to actively reject sinful inclinations and to actively imitate the Saints as a guide. We have a measure that is meaningful and a reason to engage others for our own or for their edification. We have a preserved tradition going right back to the Apostles, of believing we become involved faithful in a communion of saints being there for each other, teaching, correcting, inviting. We don't believe in a doctrine that says we have no input to our own faith which by default means that attacking others on that point is literally pointless. All it is doing is attacking the God who did all the work in a person.
When you have to say it is not tit for tat that means that you know that it could be taken that way.

You do follow a religion which clearly says that you have no input in your own faith. We know this because you must accept certain teachings whether you like it or not.
 

balshan

Well-known member
No my, my. I think you have taken it personally when I was addressing the substance of the post. He is assuming from the start that someone 'claiming' to have faith is somehow distinguishable from someone who has faith to explain James 2. Then says that works justify. But my question is how is that measured in a way that gives eternal certainty? It's a meaningless explanation.


When a doctrine states that you have zero input into the gift of faith. That it is all the work of God,,, by what excuse do you have to call out the faith of other people? It's not their fault in your doctrine, that they aren't good enough for you.


This is not tit for tat. I'm not being personal. In Catholic doctrine faith calls us to co operate with Gods grace, to strive to improve, to actively reject sinful inclinations and to actively imitate the Saints as a guide. We have a measure that is meaningful and a reason to engage others for our own or for their edification. We have a preserved tradition going right back to the Apostles, of believing we become involved faithful in a communion of saints being there for each other, teaching, correcting, inviting. We don't believe in a doctrine that says we have no input to our own faith which by default means that attacking others on that point is literally pointless. All it is doing is attacking the God who did all the work in a person.
Really RCs are constantly attacking on there beliefs. You are not allowed input at all. You must accept the Marian doctrines for example even though they are mainly not scripturre.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
No my, my. I think you have taken it personally when I was addressing the substance of the post

No, I didn't. You are reading into my post what was not there.
. He is assuming from the start that someone 'claiming' to have faith is somehow distinguishable from someone who has faith to explain James 2. Then says that works justify. But my question is how is that measured in a way that gives eternal certainty? It's a meaningless explanation.

You got nothing over what Theo wrote, didn't you? There IS a difference between what someone may claim, and what is really in his heart. "Talk is cheap." One must do more than just talk; one must "walk the walk" and when one is made a new creation by grace through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord, then one wants to do what is right and show love for others by actions, not just by words.
When a doctrine states that you have zero input into the gift of faith. That it is all the work of God,,,

it is. The unregenerated are DEAD in trespasses and sins, as per Ephesians 2. The spiritually dead can no more raise themselves to new life in Christ than the physically dead can help to raise up themselves to physical life. "This is the work of God: that you believe on Him Whom God has sent."
by what excuse do you have to call out the faith of other people? It's not their fault in your doctrine, that they aren't good enough for you.

This makes no sense. Please restate what you wrote ot make it clearer. But I wasn't calling out anyone's faith. Just pointing out your church's many unbiblical doctrines isn't doing that.
This is not tit for tat. I'm not being personal.

never said you were.
In Catholic doctrine faith calls us to co operate with Gods grace, to strive to improve, to actively reject sinful inclinations and to actively imitate the Saints as a guide. We have a measure that is meaningful and a reason to engage others for our own or for their edification. We have a preserved tradition going right back to the Apostles, of believing we become involved faithful in a communion of saints being there for each other, teaching, correcting, inviting. We don't believe in a doctrine that says we have no input to our own faith which by default means that attacking others on that point is literally pointless. All it is doing is attacking the God who did all the work in a person.
You do not have traditions going back to the Apostles. It is just your church's arrogance and pride that makes it think it does. Show us where any of the apostles taught the following: the 4 Marian dogmas, Purgatory, Indulgences, popes, praying to saints dead in the Lord as one would pray to God; celibate, unmarried clergy, salvation by grace through faith plus our works--the list goes on.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
You do not have traditions going back to the Apostles. It is just your church's arrogance and pride that makes it think it does. Show us where any of the apostles taught the following: the 4 Marian dogmas, Purgatory, Indulgences, popes, praying to saints dead in the Lord as one would pray to God; celibate, unmarried clergy, salvation by grace through faith plus our works--the list goes on.
Is your "special sink" a teaching from the apostles? No? Where is it from?
Where do the apostles teach about denominations?
Where do the apostles teach pastors to say "Don't take my word for it. Look it up for yourselves"?
Where does Scripture teach that everything is taught verbatim in Scripture?
Where do the apostles teach disregard and animosity towards the Church and all rightful spiritual authority?
Where does Scripture teach that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to all "believers"?
Where does Scripture teach post Ascension to pray to Jesus for your sins to be forgiven?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Is your "special sink" a teaching from the apostles? No? Where is it from?

No. Is yours? Special sinks are not commanded or forbidden in Scripture, they are "adiaphora." There is nothing wrong with using them and they are not a doctrine, but simply a practice that has nothing to do with salvation.
Where do the apostles teach about denominations?

Nice try at deflection. Won't work. Stick to the subject, please. But "Denominations" aren't a doctrine.

Where do the apostles teach pastors to say "Don't take my word for it. Look it up for yourselves"?
Again, nothing but an attempt to deflect.
Guess the Bereans didn't get the memo that they were not supposed to read scriptures for themselves, to determine if what Paul had taught them was true, but were supposed to blindly and unquestioningly accept what their leaders told them.
Where does Scripture teach that everything is taught verbatim in Scripture?
Where did any of us say something must be taught verbatim for it to be Scripture? I have said repeatedly that the concept must be in Scripture-'I never said it must be verbatim. Neither did anyone else on here, that I am aware of--except for YOU.
Where does Scripture make man-made doctrines equal to or greater than what is already taught in Scripture? "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the precepts of men." "Do not go beyond what is written." And more along that line...
Where do the apostles teach disregard and animosity towards the Church and all rightful spiritual authority?

Where does Scripture say that the church in the first century was the ROMAN Catholic church, and must be headed by a pope? Jesus didn't give authority to anyone to add to Scripture and teach false doctrines, as your church has been doing for many centuries.
Where does Scripture teach that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to all "believers"?

More deflection. John 20:23. Jesus gave it to ALL His disciples. And by extension, any called and ordained servant of the word has that authority.
Where does Scripture teach post Ascension to pray to Jesus for your sins to be forgiven?
Huh? What are you talking about? We pray to Jesus all the time.

Now, back to this sink business. Kindly tell me what the difference is between pouring the leftover Eucharist wine down a regular sink, and eating the wafer and drinking the wine, so that it goes into our digestive tracks, is digested, and excreted into the sewer system via the toilet?
 
Last edited:

RayneBeau

Well-known member
. . . do Roman Catholics also believe in 'verbal, plenary inspiration?'
This thread quickly got off track early on, when it was first posted...... so I'm trying to get it back on track by asking this very important question again...... Do Roman Catholics believe in "verbal plenary inspiration" which is the term used to define the very specific manner and way in which God's revelation of Himself occurred. This means that the divine inspiration of the Bible involves its very words, and extends to every part of Scripture. This is primarily why the Holy Bible claims"All Scripture is inspired by God . . . 2 Tim. 3:16.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
This thread quickly got off track early on, when it was first posted...... so I'm trying to get it back on track by asking this very important question again...... Do Roman Catholics believe in "verbal plenary inspiration" which is the term used to define the very specific manner and way in which God's revelation of Himself occurred. This means that the divine inspiration of the Bible involves its very words, and extends to every part of Scripture. This is primarily why the Holy Bible claims" All Scripture is inspired by God . . . 2 Tim. 3:16.
I have never heard of this.
 

A new day

Well-known member
I have never heard of this.

'verbal plenary inspiration is NOT the same as plenary indulgences.

I'm going to link you to gotquestions, because the explanation is short and to the point and easy to read.

 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
"Once a day"? If it's plenary (full), why would anyone need more than one? "The President granted him a full pardon, but he had to serve ten more months in jail."

Or is it that I can get only one "plenary indulgence" for different family members per day? (No group discounts?)

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
Great point Rich! According to RCC rules about their "plenary indulgences," first and foremost we have to remember that they are man-made by the Roman Catholic Church, so of course the RCC won't guarantee that Christ will really fullfill any promises of a "plenary indulgence" either for you, or for any of your family members.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
Great point Rich! According to RCC rules about their "plenary indulgences," first and foremost we have to remember that they are man-made by the Roman Catholic Church, so of course the RCC won't guarantee that Christ will really fullfill any promises of a "plenary indulgence" either for you, or for any of your family members.
The Church exercises its God given authority to bind and loose when it grants plenary indulgences.

Mat 16: 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
 

balshan

Well-known member
The Church exercises its God given authority to bind and loose when it grants plenary indulgences.

Mat 16: 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
It has no God given authority at all and RCs do not understand what this means.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Great point Rich! According to RCC rules about their "plenary indulgences," first and foremost we have to remember that they are man-made by the Roman Catholic Church, so of course the RCC won't guarantee that Christ will really fullfill any promises of a "plenary indulgence" either for you, or for any of your family members.
So, like my father-in-law used to say, "Yer puts yer money down, an' takes yer chances!" 🙄

2Co 1:20 KJV: "All the promises of God in Him [Jesus] are yea, and in Him Amen, unto the glory of God by us."
This is so much better than the RCC could ever think of offering! Gua-ran-teed by God Himself!

--Rich
 
Top