The Teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church

RayneBeau

Well-known member
I do not write commentaries on Catholic councils to give them my own ecumenical, religiously indifferent slant, like Jimmy Akin. I do not even condemn the novel teachings of Vatican II, because there is no need for me to do so. They have already been condemned by by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church.

One merely has to juxtapose the teachings of the Catholic Church which have remained consistent through the ages against the contradicting teachings promulgated by Vatican II and then use your God given reason to conclude that the two are not in conformity, that there is no continuity.

You think that what you believe regarding sacred scripture is correct. But your interpretation of sacred scripture is no more or less valid than any other Protestant's, because you have no set standard, no authority other than yourselves. So your belief is no more valid than one who denies the divinity of Christ or doesn't believe in His miracles or that believes that the Holy Spirit is feminine. You have the same authority......yourselves.
It is funny though how Roman Catholics often argue amongst themselves that the Magisterium is needed to ensure unity in the church, and they really try to convince others that the RCC is indeed a united church. But the "face-it!" reality is that the RCC has been characterized by significant disunity for many, many years! Once of the reasons the RCC published the "new" Catechism of the Catholic Church was another one of the RCC's expensive efforts to draw the church back to doctrinal unity. Debated issues included such critically important doctrines as the Trinity, the Eucharist, and the authority of the pope.

It is actually the fallible Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church that needs to be condemned because it is NOT Christ's church, nor is it any part of it - especially the Magisterium. The true and everlasting "church" of Jesus Christ" is OWNED BY JESUS - it was purchased with HIS own blood - and what HE owns, HE protects. Christ is also called the head of the church (Eph 5:23) and since HE is it's head, it is HIS prerogative to protect it - it is NOT the prerogative of finite human beings being profusely paid for taking up space in a world-wide iniquitous religious organization.
 

Mysterium Fidei

Active member
Do you at least acknowledge that there were problems on our side regarding the sale of indulgences and pridefulness in the hierarchy? Luther had legitimate accusations despite his own failings. In coming to the truth of Christ in the gospel, we have to factor in how human frailty might impact the individuals position. That is overcome by dialogue.
The "sale" of indulgences has never been approved by the Catholic Church, or by the popes in Luther's time. Yes, at the time the giving of alms to charity or to the Church was one way of gaining an indulgence and certain individuals, John Tetzel primarily, was abusing this practice and did sell indulgences.

Luther was a base, sensuous, duplicitous, and totally debauched individual, who would change his new doctrines on a whim if it would benefit him. He went far beyond wanting to merely "reform" the Church. He could not live with his own concupiscence and so became a revolutionary. He obviously was not suited to be an Augustinian monk.

The Protestant revolt, for that is what it was, tore apart Christendom and was the basis for much bloodshed and war. It's totally subjective nature has led to the humanism, materialism and perversion of the present age.

Yes, the Catholic Church was in need of reform at the time of Luther and all of his legitimate objections were addressed in the Council of Trent, including the selling of indulgences.
 

Mysterium Fidei

Active member
It is funny though how Roman Catholics often argue amongst themselves that the Magisterium is needed to ensure unity in the church, and they really try to convince others that the RCC is indeed a united church. But the "face-it!" reality is that the RCC has been characterized by significant disunity for many, many years! Once of the reasons the RCC published the "new" Catechism of the Catholic Church was another one of the RCC's expensive efforts to draw the church back to doctrinal unity. Debated issues included such critically important doctrines as the Trinity, the Eucharist, and the authority of the pope.

It is actually the fallible Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church that needs to be condemned because it is NOT Christ's church, nor is it any part of it - especially the Magisterium. The true and everlasting "church" of Jesus Christ" is OWNED BY JESUS - it was purchased with HIS own blood - and what HE owns, HE protects. Christ is also called the head of the church (Eph 5:23) and since HE is it's head, it is HIS prerogative to protect it - it is NOT the prerogative of finite human beings being profusely paid for taking up space in a world-wide iniquitous religious organization.
"No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside of the Catholic Church, one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing "Alleluia", and one can reply "Amen", one can have faith in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost and preach it too but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."

~ St. Augustine of Hippo {Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
The "sale" of indulgences has never been approved by the Catholic Church, or by the popes in Luther's time. Yes, at the time the giving of alms to charity or to the Church was one way of gaining an indulgence and certain individuals, John Tetzel primarily, was abusing this practice and did sell indulgences.

Luther was a base, sensuous, duplicitous, and totally debauched individual, who would change his new doctrines on a whim if it would benefit him. He went far beyond wanting to merely "reform" the Church. He could not live with his own concupiscence and so became a revolutionary. He obviously was not suited to be an Augustinian monk.

The Protestant revolt, for that is what it was, tore apart Christendom and was the basis for much bloodshed and war. It's totally subjective nature has led to the humanism, materialism and perversion of the present age.

Yes, the Catholic Church was in need of reform at the time of Luther and all of his legitimate objections were addressed in the Council of Trent, including the selling of indulgences.
The "sale" of indulgences has never been approved by the Catholic Church, or by the popes in Luther's time. Yes, at the time the giving of alms to charity or to the Church was one way of gaining an indulgence and certain individuals, John Tetzel primarily, was abusing this practice and did sell indulgences.
Lots of things aren't 'approved' of in the rcc yet they are there aren't they? Ligouri says mary is omnipotent. Is that the official teaching of your church? No, but there it is. Is divorce, abortion or homosexuality approved in your church? I'll bet you can find a lot of it though can't you?

Luther was a base, sensuous, duplicitous, and totally debauched individual, who would change his new doctrines on a whim if it would benefit him. He went far beyond wanting to merely "reform" the Church. He could not live with his own concupiscence and so became a revolutionary. He obviously was not suited to be an Augustinian monk.

Do you have any proof of this? Can you cite an example where Luther changed doctrine on a whim? This sounds more catholic than like Luther.

The Protestant revolt, for that is what it was, tore apart Christendom and was the basis for much bloodshed and war. It's totally subjective nature has led to the humanism, materialism and perversion of the present age.

Well, the rcc isn't christian so there was no 'tearing apart of christendom.' And you think that led to perversion? Wow that sounds like someone is turning a blind eye here doesn't it? Who was pope when Luther grew up? Alex the 6th regarded as one of, if not 'the' most immoral, debauched popes of all time. But you think Luthers 'revolt' was what led to future perversion? Biased much?
 

balshan

Well-known member
Lots of things aren't 'approved' of in the rcc yet they are there aren't they? Ligouri says mary is omnipotent. Is that the official teaching of your church? No, but there it is. Is divorce, abortion or homosexuality approved in your church? I'll bet you can find a lot of it though can't you?



Do you have any proof of this? Can you cite an example where Luther changed doctrine on a whim? This sounds more catholic than like Luther.



Well, the rcc isn't christian so there was no 'tearing apart of christendom.' And you think that led to perversion? Wow that sounds like someone is turning a blind eye here doesn't it? Who was pope when Luther grew up? Alex the 6th regarded as one of, if not 'the' most immoral, debauched popes of all time. But you think Luthers 'revolt' was what led to future perversion? Biased much?
Another great response
 

mica

Well-known member
It is funny though how Roman Catholics often argue amongst themselves that the Magisterium is needed to ensure unity in the church, and they really try to convince others that the RCC is indeed a united church. But the "face-it!" reality is that the RCC has been characterized by significant disunity for many, many years! Once of the reasons the RCC published the "new" Catechism of the Catholic Church was another one of the RCC's expensive efforts to draw the church back to doctrinal unity. Debated issues included such critically important doctrines as the Trinity, the Eucharist, and the authority of the pope.

It is actually the fallible Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church that needs to be condemned because it is NOT Christ's church, nor is it any part of it - especially the Magisterium. The true and everlasting "church" of Jesus Christ" is OWNED BY JESUS - it was purchased with HIS own blood - and what HE owns, HE protects. Christ is also called the head of the church (Eph 5:23) and since HE is it's head, it is HIS prerogative to protect it - it is NOT the prerogative of finite human beings being profusely paid for taking up space in a world-wide iniquitous religious organization.
It's disunity is with Christ crucified and with the truth of scripture.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Lots of things aren't 'approved' of in the rcc yet they are there aren't they? Ligouri says mary is omnipotent. Is that the official teaching of your church? No, but there it is. Is divorce, abortion or homosexuality approved in your church? I'll bet you can find a lot of it though can't you?



Do you have any proof of this? Can you cite an example where Luther changed doctrine on a whim? This sounds more catholic than like Luther.



Well, the rcc isn't christian so there was no 'tearing apart of christendom.' And you think that led to perversion? Wow that sounds like someone is turning a blind eye here doesn't it? Who was pope when Luther grew up? Alex the 6th regarded as one of, if not 'the' most immoral, debauched popes of all time. But you think Luthers 'revolt' was what led to future perversion? Biased much?
Luther was a debased, sensuous debauched individual? Really? Sounds more like Pope Alex VI to me...

Luther was not perfect and said and wrote stuff Katie should have clocked him with a skillet for, but debauched? Sensuous? Debased? A man who loved his wife and children, and was devoted to them; who gave away most of their wedding gifts to folks in need; and who opened up his home to turn it into a hospital for plague victims, even adopting 11 orphans (many of whom were orphaned by the plague)?

Some of your popes should be so "debased, sensuous, and debauched"! :rolleyes:

You have bought into the lies your church tells about Martin Luther.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
I have that. Can you be more specific? You made the claim. Point me to Luther himself where he did this, changed doctrine on a whim.
I would be interested in seeing that, too. I know his beliefs about some things changed as he delved further into God's word, but that would hardly be changing at a "whim."
 

Bonnie

Super Member
The "sale" of indulgences has never been approved by the Catholic Church, or by the popes in Luther's time. Yes, at the time the giving of alms to charity or to the Church was one way of gaining an indulgence and certain individuals, John Tetzel primarily, was abusing this practice and did sell indulgences.

Luther was a base, sensuous, duplicitous, and totally debauched individual, who would change his new doctrines on a whim if it would benefit him. He went far beyond wanting to merely "reform" the Church. He could not live with his own concupiscence and so became a revolutionary. He obviously was not suited to be an Augustinian monk.

The Protestant revolt, for that is what it was, tore apart Christendom and was the basis for much bloodshed and war. It's totally subjective nature has led to the humanism, materialism and perversion of the present age.

Yes, the Catholic Church was in need of reform at the time of Luther and all of his legitimate objections were addressed in the Council of Trent, including the selling of indulgences.
So, what financed the building of St. Peter's Basilica? People "donated" money for the building of that ediface...and received an indulgence in return...how is that any different than selling indulgences? You say the Council of Trent fixed the indulgences problem? No it did not...since your church still issues them.

The ignorant stuff you wrote about Luther I already addressed in another post to Nondenom40, post no. 52..
 
Last edited:

Nondenom40

Super Member
I would be interested in seeing that, too. I know his beliefs about some things changed as he delved further into God's word, but that would hardly be changing at a "whim."
We all change as we grow in Christ and thats not a bad thing. But 'on a whim'? There were other catholics here too that when cornered flat out refused to show us or back up their claims. Here MF is doing the very same thing. Instead of just showing us, its 'hey read all six volumes of Grisar yourself.' If he had anything thats where he should have proved his point. He didn't.
 

balshan

Well-known member
The "sale" of indulgences has never been approved by the Catholic Church, or by the popes in Luther's time. Yes, at the time the giving of alms to charity or to the Church was one way of gaining an indulgence and certain individuals, John Tetzel primarily, was abusing this practice and did sell indulgences.

Luther was a base, sensuous, duplicitous, and totally debauched individual, who would change his new doctrines on a whim if it would benefit him. He went far beyond wanting to merely "reform" the Church. He could not live with his own concupiscence and so became a revolutionary. He obviously was not suited to be an Augustinian monk.

The Protestant revolt, for that is what it was, tore apart Christendom and was the basis for much bloodshed and war. It's totally subjective nature has led to the humanism, materialism and perversion of the present age.

Yes, the Catholic Church was in need of reform at the time of Luther and all of his legitimate objections were addressed in the Council of Trent, including the selling of indulgences.
Let me see the pope at the time was spending money like it was water. Why? Because he wanted artwork and to build St Peter's.

Pope Leo X

A scion of the powerful Medici family of Florence, Leo had his talents and was a patron of the arts but is remembered most for his lavish spendthrift habits in the years he was pope, between 1513 and 1521. His emptying of the Vatican's coffers led to various measures to create more revenue, which included the sale of indulgences — in effect, guarantees of relief from damnation in the afterlife. This practice infuriated a certain German contemporary of Leo, Martin Luther, and planted the seeds of the Protestant Reformation.


The protestant revolt as you call in, came from God, to clean up Christianity.
 

balshan

Well-known member
So, what financed the building of St. Peter's Basilica? People "donated" money for the building of that ediface...and received an indulgence in return...how is that any different than selling indulgences? You say the Council of Trent fixed the indulgences problem? No it did not...since your church still issues them.

The ignorant stuff you wrote about Luther I already addressed in another post to nondenom.
It smells the same to me.
 

balshan

Well-known member
We all change as we grow in Christ and thats not a bad thing. But 'on a whim'? There were other catholics here too that when cornered flat out refused to show us or back up their claims. Here MF is doing the very same thing. Instead of just showing us, its 'hey read all six volumes of Grisar yourself.' If he had anything thats where he should have proved his point. He didn't.
Some RCs like to use Luther when he agrees with them and like to kick him to the curb when they don't like what he says. He is either a villian or a hero.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Let me see the pope at the time was spending money like it was water. Why? Because he wanted artwork and to build St Peter's.

Pope Leo X

A scion of the powerful Medici family of Florence, Leo had his talents and was a patron of the arts but is remembered most for his lavish spendthrift habits in the years he was pope, between 1513 and 1521. His emptying of the Vatican's coffers led to various measures to create more revenue, which included the sale of indulgences — in effect, guarantees of relief from damnation in the afterlife. This practice infuriated a certain German contemporary of Leo, Martin Luther, and planted the seeds of the Protestant Reformation.


The protestant revolt as you call in, came from God, to clean up Christianity.
Interesting link, but I note one mistake: the Vatican did not exist for nearly 2000 years. It replaced the Lateran Palace after it burned, though I do not remember the year. Also the RCC as it exists today did not exist nearly 2000 years ago; it took centuries for it to evolve into the bloated organization it is today.
 
Top