Quote:

---

We don't need to speculate about what the early clergy were doing because we have concrete historical evidence.

---

What is that evidence and what is the earliest date of the evidence?

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

It's good we can get a couple things out of the way already.

First, that there's no Scriptural support for indulgences so you have to appeal to a self-claimed authority. It helps to support what I've said in many of these threads. Rome cannot defend it's practices with Scripture or Church Tradition, so it claims it has the authority.

I'll take the easiest route and point out that this claimed tradition doesn't exist in the early church, nor any other group.

Quote:

---

Christ the King, the eternal logos, appointed Peter and his apostles and their successors. In his wisdom he gave the authority to loose and bind to them, including the ability to apply it, in his sovereignty he said he that hears them hears me. He gave the church the Holy Ghost to lead and guide and promised to be with it always, guaranteeing that not even the gates of hell could prevail against her. What promise or authority did Christ give to those who are passing judgement against her? By what authority were they given to start their own religion?

---

Which says nothing about indulgences. Or maybe I missed the verse where Christ was taking payment for the deeds he did.

Certainly Paul talks about how he takes payment for the miracles he performs?

I guess we can also rely on this same reasoning to justify burning heretics as Rome was fond of doing. You know...it's the authority God gave them...

Quote:

---

What I find silly is taking the word if someone who broke their oath to God, and physically attacked the body of Christ causing schism. Someone who took authority given to the church for themselves. Someone who didn't even make it a decade before those following him in schism chose to follow his schismatic path and start their own church making in their own images, until the next predictable schism happens.

---

This is why Rome failed during the Reformation and will continue to struggle.

Nobody here "takes the word" of Luther. He's was never a Pope nor desired to be because he saw the flaw in it. An infallible man can never be the head of the Church. An infallible man can never make unilateral decisions. So no, I don't follow Luther because of what he said. And to avoid any silly claim, it was Rome that gave the name "Lutheran" to the Reformers as a smear.

What Luther did is make the Scriptures available. To rip it from the authoritarian hands of Rome and put it to the people who could see what it actually said vs what Rome claimed. So why was the Reformation successful? Because it put God back into control from a man.

---

I hate to be rude but there is no way you can be this dense without purposefully trying. I refuse to believe you are this dense and you're adopting it as merely a defense mechanism to enable you to maintain an internally inconsistent outlook on Christianity.

The church has the authority to bind and to loose, given to them by Christ himself, therefore if they come up with a system by which temporal punishment is remitted, Christ looses the temporal punishment. You do not need scriptural support for what the Catholic Church does if you have scriptural support that what the Catholic Church binds and looses, Christ binds and looses.

You also once again fail to understand the difference between an indulgence and the selling of the indulgence by your comment "surely Paul takes payment for the miracles he was performing".

Making the scriptures available to a person without the proper hermeneutic with which to digest them is more dangerous than handing a loaded gun to a child. Look what you did with access to the scriptures, instead of 1 pope and 1 magisterium you have infinite. Everyone's own "personal relationship with Christ" reigned supreme. You lost the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you lost the Sacraments, and greatly imperiled your salvation, limitless mercy of God notwithstanding.

You were not humble enough to take a page from the Orthodox and sever diplomatic ties with Rome while maintaining the deposit of faith. In order to make yourself more marketable you severed ties with Rome AND divorced yourself from the fullness of truth in order to better appeal to the masses. Shame

---

Lol what?

The very response my post against was "You grant the church has the authority to loose and bind, but then by your own judgement say how it should be applied."

I absolutely have the right to point out that their preferred method was to charge the commoner so the Pope could get a bigger house.

I chose to start at the root of the error, which I'm not even sure Jrico will admit was wrong.

The very concept of indulgence itself though has no scriptural basis either. Trying to rope the concept into "binding and loosing" is beyond a stretch, but we haven't gotten that far yet. Still on step 1.

Odd. Rome makes the same claim of "fullness of faith." Maybe you and Rome can get together and figure that one out and let me know who is correct.

---

I have zero problem with Orthodoxy making the claim of the fullness of truth; in my estimation we are both correct and are talking past each other due to centuries of rivalry and differing perspectives and philosophies. Jesus Christ is the fullness and truth, and both East and West have the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. .

I have zero idea about what sort of "rights" you're claiming, no one is infringing upon your right to be wrong on an alumni discussion board, I'm just pointing out you're unable to separate what an indulgence is, and what selling an indulgence is; which is odd.

There absolutely is a scriptural basis for indulgences, but it is unnecessary if the Catholic Church has the power to bind and loose given to it by Christ himself. Both arguments are losers. The Church has been binding and loosing things well before the advent of Protestantism and you find yourself in the same sort of "where did the bible come from" merry-go-round when you ponder where all these things that have been bound and loosed came from in the first 1500 years of Christianity if the Church did not have that power.

---

Talking past each other? Really? The Roman Catholic claim about the Pope has quite literally divided the entire Church, whether it be the Great Schism or the Reformation. It's the most destructive claim in existence.

But the spiderwebs of false doctrine that come from that false claim are the very reason you have claims such as indulgences, that nobody else in the world can seem to justify, but that Rome could when the Pope wanted a new house.

But as others have pointed...the power to bind and loose is not limited to Rome. It is for the Church. That Rome first tried to monetize it to the detriment of the citizens lays squarely at the feet of the Pope.

That was the big realization Luther had at the end of Tetzel's life...That Tetzel and what he did were simply the effect of a much bigger problem. Hence about a year later, Luther writes "On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church" which is what actually led to his excommunication.

Quote:

---

Thanks for the cute Meme

Do they have one for days that someone didn't come up with their own personal interpterion/opinion and then started their own church?

---

Thanks, I thought it fit the discussion nicely. I haven't read your full response, but there's good odds the counter will need to be reset again. We shall see.

In terms of the timer you ask for...that's existed since the beginning of the Church. Remember, most of the Church has never agreed with many of the "doctrines" of Rome. One big difference these days is Rome can't get away with burning people at the stake who disagree with them. So things are a little more challenging.

Quote:

---

Since we agree the authority to loose and bind was given to the Apostles and their successors the Church, we then devolve into where is their action approved in scripture?

To answer this first would have to say it doesn't matter if it there or not, because we don't follow the sola scriptura heresy.

---

It is good that we don't have to dance around silly claims like there's scriptural support. There's no historical evidence to support it either, but that of course doesn't matter either to you.

Quote:

---

Your rejection of authority comes only with accusation. That the Church abused their authority. When it comes to indulgences did they, I want to say kind of, it was certainly unsavory but there is a lawyerish answer that makes it permissible under the letter of the law but it certainly was opposed by not only Luther and his band of revolutionaries, but by true reformers that stayed with Holy Church and this practice isn't done anymore.

---

Two corrections. First Rome is not "the Church," but a church and second, Luther wasn't "revolutionary." The cry of Luther and the Reformers was "Ad Fontes" or back to the sources. He and others worked tirelessly to remove the rot within Rome, and found that it went to the top (absolutely true) and he was punished for it. Luther never left Rome, Rome kicked him out for not going along with false doctrine.

Quote:

---

However by your bible only approach where does it say if religious authorities abuse their power to revolt and start your own Church? Is that the approach Christ took in his day? In the Gospel yesterday we read in Matthew 23, a week before his passion Jesus after speaking about the scribes and Pharisees "2 'The scribes and the Pharisees occupy the chair of Moses.

---

First, Sola Scriptura is not "bible only," but you know that. We absolutely love and enjoy the rich history and theology of the Church Fathers. They are a guide to how the Church handled the scripture throughout history.

It's ironic that you would use Christ as an example. Christ challenged "the church" or religious authorities as being wrong in understanding God's Word and they killed him for it. But yes, in nearly every since of the word, Christ did create a new Church.

But to the rest...

First, to restate the historical position of much of the Christian Church, Rome is not in the same position or claim as the Pharisees. You don't sit on the "seat of Jesus" or "Seat of Peter or the apostles." You may claim it, but this has never been a claim met with apostolic agreement. So it's not a claim that holds much weight.

Second, Jesus has spent chapter after chapter (12 and 15) constantly correcting the Pharisees. We can't simply read that Jesus is telling the people to blindly follow the Pharisees, but instead pointing out that even a hypocrite (the Pharisees verse 13)) can teach correct doctrine and we should receive that when we can.

That you read Matthew 23 and come away that Jesus held up the Pharisees as a positive is tough to understand.

And in the case of Luther, that's exactly what he did. Accepted what could stand up to Scripture, but also historical tradition.

Edit...missed the last part..

Quote:

---

on side note a do find it ironic that some those who justify schism because of medieval fundraising tatics, are the same ones who tell me just have faith give them money and God will multiply it and build mega churches and buy personal jets but hey at least they're not papist right

---

Straw man gonna straw man.

Please show me anywhere in Lutheranism where this nonsense is taught?

I have no problem rejecting the prosperity gospel nonsense. It has nothing to do with the Reformation, but truly heretical nonsense (in the correct usage of the word).

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

It's good we can get a couple things out of the way already.

First, that there's no Scriptural support for indulgences so you have to appeal to a self-claimed authority. It helps to support what I've said in many of these threads. Rome cannot defend it's practices with Scripture or Church Tradition, so it claims it has the authority.

I'll take the easiest route and point out that this claimed tradition doesn't exist in the early church, nor any other group.

Quote:

---

Christ the King, the eternal logos, appointed Peter and his apostles and their successors. In his wisdom he gave the authority to loose and bind to them, including the ability to apply it, in his sovereignty he said he that hears them hears me. He gave the church the Holy Ghost to lead and guide and promised to be with it always, guaranteeing that not even the gates of hell could prevail against her. What promise or authority did Christ give to those who are passing judgement against her? By what authority were they given to start their own religion?

---

Which says nothing about indulgences. Or maybe I missed the verse where Christ was taking payment for the deeds he did.

Certainly Paul talks about how he takes payment for the miracles he performs?

I guess we can also rely on this same reasoning to justify burning heretics as Rome was fond of doing. You know...it's the authority God gave them...

Quote:

---

What I find silly is taking the word if someone who broke their oath to God, and physically attacked the body of Christ causing schism. Someone who took authority given to the church for themselves. Someone who didn't even make it a decade before those following him in schism chose to follow his schismatic path and start their own church making in their own images, until the next predictable schism happens.

---

This is why Rome failed during the Reformation and will continue to struggle.

Nobody here "takes the word" of Luther. He's was never a Pope nor desired to be because he saw the flaw in it. An infallible man can never be the head of the Church. An infallible man can never make unilateral decisions. So no, I don't follow Luther because of what he said. And to avoid any silly claim, it was Rome that gave the name "Lutheran" to the Reformers as a smear.

What Luther did is make the Scriptures available. To rip it from the authoritarian hands of Rome and put it to the people who could see what it actually said vs what Rome claimed. So why was the Reformation successful? Because it put God back into control from a man.

---

I hate to be rude but there is no way you can be this dense without purposefully trying. I refuse to believe you are this dense and you're adopting it as merely a defense mechanism to enable you to maintain an internally inconsistent outlook on Christianity.

The church has the authority to bind and to loose, given to them by Christ himself, therefore if they come up with a system by which temporal punishment is remitted, Christ looses the temporal punishment. You do not need scriptural support for what the Catholic Church does if you have scriptural support that what the Catholic Church binds and looses, Christ binds and looses.

You also once again fail to understand the difference between an indulgence and the selling of the indulgence by your comment "surely Paul takes payment for the miracles he was performing".

Making the scriptures available to a person without the proper hermeneutic with which to digest them is more dangerous than handing a loaded gun to a child. Look what you did with access to the scriptures, instead of 1 pope and 1 magisterium you have infinite. Everyone's own "personal relationship with Christ" reigned supreme. You lost the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you lost the Sacraments, and greatly imperiled your salvation, limitless mercy of God notwithstanding.

You were not humble enough to take a page from the Orthodox and sever diplomatic ties with Rome while maintaining the deposit of faith. In order to make yourself more marketable you severed ties with Rome AND divorced yourself from the fullness of truth in order to better appeal to the masses. Shame

---

Lol what?

The very response my post against was "You grant the church has the authority to loose and bind, but then by your own judgement say how it should be applied."

I absolutely have the right to point out that their preferred method was to charge the commoner so the Pope could get a bigger house.

I chose to start at the root of the error, which I'm not even sure Jrico will admit was wrong.

The very concept of indulgence itself though has no scriptural basis either. Trying to rope the concept into "binding and loosing" is beyond a stretch, but we haven't gotten that far yet. Still on step 1.

Odd. Rome makes the same claim of "fullness of faith." Maybe you and Rome can get together and figure that one out and let me know who is correct.

---

I have zero problem with Orthodoxy making the claim of the fullness of truth; in my estimation we are both correct and are talking past each other due to centuries of rivalry and differing perspectives and philosophies. Jesus Christ is the fullness and truth, and both East and West have the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. .

I have zero idea about what sort of "rights" you're claiming, no one is infringing upon your right to be wrong on an alumni discussion board, I'm just pointing out you're unable to separate what an indulgence is, and what selling an indulgence is; which is odd.

There absolutely is a scriptural basis for indulgences, but it is unnecessary if the Catholic Church has the power to bind and loose given to it by Christ himself. Both arguments are losers. The Church has been binding and loosing things well before the advent of Protestantism and you find yourself in the same sort of "where did the bible come from" merry-go-round when you ponder where all these things that have been bound and loosed came from in the first 1500 years of Christianity if the Church did not have that power.

---

Talking past each other? Really? The Roman Catholic claim about the Pope has quite literally divided the entire Church, whether it be the Great Schism or the Reformation. It's the most destructive claim in existence.

But the spiderwebs of false doctrine that come from that false claim are the very reason you have claims such as indulgences, that nobody else in the world can seem to justify, but that Rome could when the Pope wanted a new house.

But as others have pointed...the power to bind and loose is not limited to Rome. It is for the Church. That Rome first tried to monetize it to the detriment of the citizens lays squarely at the feet of the Pope.

That was the big realization Luther had at the end of Tetzel's life...That Tetzel and what he did were simply the effect of a much bigger problem. Hence about a year later, Luther writes "On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church" which is what actually led to his excommunication.

---

Who comprises "The Church" in Protestantism? First Baptist? Second Baptist? Westboro Baptist? Holy Hand of Risen Zion Cowboy Church? Any person who hangs a shingle and decides to call themselves a church suddenly acquires the ability to bind and loose in Christ's name? Not the successor to St.Peter whose authority was given to him by Christ himself, but Pastor Jim whose authority came from a correspondence course from Oral Roberts.

Also, your lack of knowledge on the history of the church is astounding. For 1: There are over 20 orthodox churches in communion with Rome, which make up the "eastern Catholic Church" so the idea that there's some insurmountable Papal primacy wall between the two is ridiculous. The Filioque is much more of a stumbling block as evidence by St.Mark of Ephesus and the Council of Ferrara

Secondly, yes the Orthodox have historically had their own form of indulgences as well: Permission Letters and Absolution certificates. I will quote from the Orthodox Council of Constantinople of 1727 "the Power of the abandonment of sins, which if filed in writing, which the Eastern Church of Christ calls 'permissive letters' and the Latin People call 'indulgences ' is given by Christ in His Holy Church. These permissive letters are issued throughout the universal church by the four holiest patriarchs: Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch"

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Absolution_Certificates#:~:text=The%20practice%20of%20issuing%20indulgences,Mesopotamia%2C%20Palestine%2C%20and%20Egypt.

---

Lol. You claim a "lack of knowledge on history of the church" and then claim "orthodox" churches are in communion...The only ones claiming them as orthodox are Rome so they can claim orthodox. How many of those are in actual communion with the Eastern Orthodox? None? So yeah, it still holds that the Pope is the divider.

And the Filioque is a symptom of the Pope, but you presumably know that. There's functionally not a lot wrong with the concept of the filioque, though maybe it should have been "through the Son" vs "and the Son," but it was the method of how it was introduced. By edict of Rome that they had the authority to change the Creed, which of course is directly tied to the claim of supremacy over the other churches.

Finally, you did read the link?
"Absolution Certificates were a form of indulgences used in the Orthodox Christian churches of the eastern Mediterranean area during the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, a use that arose from the influence of western European culture, particularly Latin, as Greek scholars and theologians increased their contacts and education at western schools."

So we can take from this, that the Orthodox had no historical precedence for it, but it came to be in the 16th century due to influences from Rome. Even then, it appears to only have lasted 2 centuries before being stopped.

If this is supposed to be an endorsement, it fails on multiple levels. It lacks historical support and was quickly abandoned

We also have this:

OCA

"There is no similar concept of indulgences within Orthodox Christianity."

Antiochian

"One writer has compared Orthodoxy to the faith of Rome and Protestantism in this basic fashion: Orthodoxy has maintained the New Testament tradition, whereas Rome has often added to it and Protestantism subtracted from it.

For example, Rome added to the ancient Creed of the Church, while numerous Protestant Churches rarely study or recite it. Rome has layers of ecclesiastical authority; much of Protestantism is anti-hierarchical or even "independent" in polity. Rome introduced indulgences and purgatory; in reaction, Protestantism shies away from good works and discipline."

So no, you won't find any sort of confirmation in Orthodoxy for the mess that is indulgences.

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

It's good we can get a couple things out of the way already.

First, that there's no Scriptural support for indulgences so you have to appeal to a self-claimed authority. It helps to support what I've said in many of these threads. Rome cannot defend it's practices with Scripture or Church Tradition, so it claims it has the authority.

I'll take the easiest route and point out that this claimed tradition doesn't exist in the early church, nor any other group.

Quote:

---

Christ the King, the eternal logos, appointed Peter and his apostles and their successors. In his wisdom he gave the authority to loose and bind to them, including the ability to apply it, in his sovereignty he said he that hears them hears me. He gave the church the Holy Ghost to lead and guide and promised to be with it always, guaranteeing that not even the gates of hell could prevail against her. What promise or authority did Christ give to those who are passing judgement against her? By what authority were they given to start their own religion?

---

Which says nothing about indulgences. Or maybe I missed the verse where Christ was taking payment for the deeds he did.

Certainly Paul talks about how he takes payment for the miracles he performs?

I guess we can also rely on this same reasoning to justify burning heretics as Rome was fond of doing. You know...it's the authority God gave them...

Quote:

---

What I find silly is taking the word if someone who broke their oath to God, and physically attacked the body of Christ causing schism. Someone who took authority given to the church for themselves. Someone who didn't even make it a decade before those following him in schism chose to follow his schismatic path and start their own church making in their own images, until the next predictable schism happens.

---

This is why Rome failed during the Reformation and will continue to struggle.

Nobody here "takes the word" of Luther. He's was never a Pope nor desired to be because he saw the flaw in it. An infallible man can never be the head of the Church. An infallible man can never make unilateral decisions. So no, I don't follow Luther because of what he said. And to avoid any silly claim, it was Rome that gave the name "Lutheran" to the Reformers as a smear.

What Luther did is make the Scriptures available. To rip it from the authoritarian hands of Rome and put it to the people who could see what it actually said vs what Rome claimed. So why was the Reformation successful? Because it put God back into control from a man.

---

I hate to be rude but there is no way you can be this dense without purposefully trying. I refuse to believe you are this dense and you're adopting it as merely a defense mechanism to enable you to maintain an internally inconsistent outlook on Christianity.

The church has the authority to bind and to loose, given to them by Christ himself, therefore if they come up with a system by which temporal punishment is remitted, Christ looses the temporal punishment. You do not need scriptural support for what the Catholic Church does if you have scriptural support that what the Catholic Church binds and looses, Christ binds and looses.

You also once again fail to understand the difference between an indulgence and the selling of the indulgence by your comment "surely Paul takes payment for the miracles he was performing".

Making the scriptures available to a person without the proper hermeneutic with which to digest them is more dangerous than handing a loaded gun to a child. Look what you did with access to the scriptures, instead of 1 pope and 1 magisterium you have infinite. Everyone's own "personal relationship with Christ" reigned supreme. You lost the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you lost the Sacraments, and greatly imperiled your salvation, limitless mercy of God notwithstanding.

You were not humble enough to take a page from the Orthodox and sever diplomatic ties with Rome while maintaining the deposit of faith. In order to make yourself more marketable you severed ties with Rome AND divorced yourself from the fullness of truth in order to better appeal to the masses. Shame

---

Lol what?

The very response my post against was "You grant the church has the authority to loose and bind, but then by your own judgement say how it should be applied."

I absolutely have the right to point out that their preferred method was to charge the commoner so the Pope could get a bigger house.

I chose to start at the root of the error, which I'm not even sure Jrico will admit was wrong.

The very concept of indulgence itself though has no scriptural basis either. Trying to rope the concept into "binding and loosing" is beyond a stretch, but we haven't gotten that far yet. Still on step 1.

Odd. Rome makes the same claim of "fullness of faith." Maybe you and Rome can get together and figure that one out and let me know who is correct.

---

I have zero problem with Orthodoxy making the claim of the fullness of truth; in my estimation we are both correct and are talking past each other due to centuries of rivalry and differing perspectives and philosophies. Jesus Christ is the fullness and truth, and both East and West have the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. .

I have zero idea about what sort of "rights" you're claiming, no one is infringing upon your right to be wrong on an alumni discussion board, I'm just pointing out you're unable to separate what an indulgence is, and what selling an indulgence is; which is odd.

There absolutely is a scriptural basis for indulgences, but it is unnecessary if the Catholic Church has the power to bind and loose given to it by Christ himself. Both arguments are losers. The Church has been binding and loosing things well before the advent of Protestantism and you find yourself in the same sort of "where did the bible come from" merry-go-round when you ponder where all these things that have been bound and loosed came from in the first 1500 years of Christianity if the Church did not have that power.

---

Talking past each other? Really? The Roman Catholic claim about the Pope has quite literally divided the entire Church, whether it be the Great Schism or the Reformation. It's the most destructive claim in existence.

But the spiderwebs of false doctrine that come from that false claim are the very reason you have claims such as indulgences, that nobody else in the world can seem to justify, but that Rome could when the Pope wanted a new house.

But as others have pointed...the power to bind and loose is not limited to Rome. It is for the Church. That Rome first tried to monetize it to the detriment of the citizens lays squarely at the feet of the Pope.

That was the big realization Luther had at the end of Tetzel's life...That Tetzel and what he did were simply the effect of a much bigger problem. Hence about a year later, Luther writes "On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church" which is what actually led to his excommunication.

---

Who comprises "The Church" in Protestantism? First Baptist? Second Baptist? Westboro Baptist? Holy Hand of Risen Zion Cowboy Church? Any person who hangs a shingle and decides to call themselves a church suddenly acquires the ability to bind and loose in Christ's name? Not the successor to St.Peter whose authority was given to him by Christ himself, but Pastor Jim whose authority came from a correspondence course from Oral Roberts.

Also, your lack of knowledge on the history of the church is astounding. For 1: There are over 20 orthodox churches in communion with Rome, which make up the "eastern Catholic Church" so the idea that there's some insurmountable Papal primacy wall between the two is ridiculous. The Filioque is much more of a stumbling block as evidence by St.Mark of Ephesus and the Council of Ferrara

Secondly, yes the Orthodox have historically had their own form of indulgences as well: Permission Letters and Absolution certificates. I will quote from the Orthodox Council of Constantinople of 1727 "the Power of the abandonment of sins, which if filed in writing, which the Eastern Church of Christ calls 'permissive letters' and the Latin People call 'indulgences ' is given by Christ in His Holy Church. These permissive letters are issued throughout the universal church by the four holiest patriarchs: Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch"

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Absolution_Certificates#:~:text=The%20practice%20of%20issuing%20indulgences,Mesopotamia%2C%20Palestine%2C%20and%20Egypt.

---

Lol. You claim a "lack of knowledge on history of the church" and then claim "orthodox" churches are in communion...The only ones claiming them as orthodox are Rome so they can claim orthodox. How many of those are in actual communion with the Eastern Orthodox? None? So yeah, it still holds that the Pope is the divider.

And the Filioque is a symptom of the Pope, but you presumably know that. There's functionally not a lot wrong with the concept of the filioque, though maybe it should have been "through the Son" vs "and the Son," but it was the method of how it was introduced. By edict of Rome that they had the authority to change the Creed, which of course is directly tied to the claim of supremacy over the other churches.

Finally, you did read the link?
"Absolution Certificates were a form of indulgences used in the Orthodox Christian churches of the eastern Mediterranean area during the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, a use that arose from the influence of western European culture, particularly Latin, as Greek scholars and theologians increased their contacts and education at western schools."

So we can take from this, that the Orthodox had no historical precedence for it, but it came to be in the 16th century due to influences from Rome. Even then, it appears to only have lasted 2 centuries before being stopped.

If this is supposed to be an endorsement, it fails on multiple levels. It lacks historical support and was quickly abandoned

We also have this:

OCA

"There is no similar concept of indulgences within Orthodox Christianity."

Antiochian

"One writer has compared Orthodoxy to the faith of Rome and Protestantism in this basic fashion: Orthodoxy has maintained the New Testament tradition, whereas Rome has often added to it and Protestantism subtracted from it.

For example, Rome added to the ancient Creed of the Church, while numerous Protestant Churches rarely study or recite it. Rome has layers of ecclesiastical authority; much of Protestantism is anti-hierarchical or even "independent" in polity. Rome introduced indulgences and purgatory; in reaction, Protestantism shies away from good works and discipline."

So no, you won't find any sort of confirmation in Orthodoxy for the mess that is indulgences.

---

The Italo-Albanian Catholic Church is in communion with Rome while having never severed its ties to Orthodoxy (https://cnewa.org/magazine/profiles-33250/?amp=1).

Did you read the link above where it said "absolution certificates were a form of indulgence used by the Eastern Orthodox" and in the next breath day that there is no evidence that the Eastern Orthodox ever had anything similar to indulgences?

And again, I would love an answer to who comprises "the church" in Protestantism. You conveniently glossed over that portion of my response. Who has the power to Bind and Loose outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

---

I'd look for the EO to comment on it, but the best I can tell from that article, is they remained in communion with both for a time following the Great Schism, but that communion would not be sustained today when they sided with Rome.

"Presuming the faithful were in communion with the bishop of Rome, Archbishop Procorus of Ohrid sent Bishop Pafnuzius to provide pastoral care for the Italo-Albanians. Named archbishop of Agrigento by Pope Julius III, Pafnuzius celebrated the sacred mysteries according to the rituals of the Church of Ohrid and exercised judicial power as needed. Although the ecumenical patriarch in Constantinople had already declared the Council of Florence null and void, he confirmed Pafnuzius appointment, achieving, if only for a short time, an undivided church."
-----------

In terms of who comprises the Church? That was answered clearly in 1530

[VII. Concerning the Church]
[1] It is also taught that at all times there must be and remain one holy, Christian church. It is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel.
[2] For this is enough for the true unity of the Christian church that there the gospel is preached harmoniously according to a pure understanding and the sacraments are administered in conformity with the divine Word. [3] It is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian church that uniform ceremonies, instituted by human beings, be observed everywhere. [4] As Paul says in Ephesians 4[:45*]: "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

[VIII. What Is the Church?]
[1] Likewise, although the Christian church is, properly speaking, nothing else than the assembly of all believers and saints, yet because in this life many false Christians, hypocrites, and even public sinners remain among the righteous, [2] the sacramentseven though administered by unrighteous priestsare efficacious all the same. For as Christ himself indicates [Matt. 23:23*]: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat.…"
[3] Condemned, therefore, are the Donatists and all others who hold a different view.

You haven't answered the question, you have merely linked to a document describing the nature and the composition of the church. Where is it? Christ left us this august body to bind and loose and shepherd his flock in his absence and you can't even point to it? There are how many different flavor of Protestant? Which of the 30,000+ splinter cells are carrying the mantle for Christ?

We can see where it was in the past, at all of these Councils that were led by people called "Bishops" who traced their authority back to the apostles, who then sent their findings to the Pope for confirmation.

How is this done now? And by whom?

Terminus Est said:

---

You haven't answered the question, you have merely linked to a document describing the nature and the composition of the church. Where is it? Christ left us this august body to bind and loose and shepherd his flock in his absence and you can't even point to it? There are how many different flavor of Protestant? Which of the 30,000+ splinter cells are carrying the mantle for Christ?

We can see where it was in the past, at all of these Councils that were led by people called "Bishops" who traced their authority back to the apostles, who then sent their findings to the Pope for confirmation.

How is this done now? And by whom?

---

I've certainly answered the question. You don't have to like it, but that's the definition used for defining a Church.

The point is God did not create an institution, but a Church. Your membership into a manmade structure does not denote you are a christian or believer. There are almost certainly many people sitting in Roman Catholic Churches who are not christians, likewise the same applies in many protestant Churches.

So you want to create a false binary.

It's quite loose to claim all these councils have bishops who can trace their authority back. That's not historically accurate, but a nice fable.

So, yes, I've answered your question.

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

You haven't answered the question, you have merely linked to a document describing the nature and the composition of the church. Where is it? Christ left us this august body to bind and loose and shepherd his flock in his absence and you can't even point to it? There are how many different flavor of Protestant? Which of the 30,000+ splinter cells are carrying the mantle for Christ?

We can see where it was in the past, at all of these Councils that were led by people called "Bishops" who traced their authority back to the apostles, who then sent their findings to the Pope for confirmation.

How is this done now? And by whom?

---

I've certainly answered the question. You don't have to like it, but that's the definition used for defining a Church.

The point is God did not create an institution, but a Church. Your membership into a manmade structure does not denote you are a christian or believer. There are almost certainly many people sitting in Roman Catholic Churches who are not christians, likewise the same applies in many protestant Churches.

So you want to create a false binary.

It's quite loose to claim all these councils have bishops who can trace their authority back. That's not historically accurate, but a nice fable.

So, yes, I've answered your question.

---

I'm not even talking about the Catholic Church right now, I'm just asking you to tell me who has the Power to bind and loose right now on Earth. Where are they? How do we know who to listen to? Which teaching is authentic and which teaching leads to damnation? Where did and how did they get their authority? You say God didn't create an institution, while Protestants have created 30,000. Surely you must be able to point to 1 of them as holding the keys to the kingdom, no?

These should be easy for you to answer.

---

Apologies for not responding sooner. I take breaks from this forum off and on.

It is an easy answer. You just don't like it because you've been taught that the church must be an authoritative structure. You've asked a bunch of new questions though.

Going back to what I said: "the Christian church is, properly speaking, nothing else than the assembly of all believers and saints"

When the keys were given to the Apostles, it was given to the church and the keys can be exercised by all believers (obviously).

From the Augsburg Confession:
"[3] If we define the sacraments as rites, which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to determine what the sacraments are, properly speaking. For humanly instituted rites are not sacraments, properly speaking, because human beings do not have the authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without the command of God are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps serve to teach or admonish the common folk. [4] Therefore, the sacraments are actually baptism, the Lord's Supper, and absolution (the sacrament of repentance). For these rites have the command of God and the promise of grace, which is the essence of the New Testament.

To the rest. I'll answer them in short form.

Authentic teaching -> I'd point to the Reformation and the recover/rediscovery of the true Gospel and historical teachings. I do however recognize many heterodox groups, such as Rome where God's grace may reside and see them as Christians, though in error. (Many in Rome will say the same, though a few here call Lutherans heretics, which is fun).

Where did our authority come from? Depends on your definition of authority. God is the true authority and He gave His Church His Word to guide it. That many incorrectly claim authority beyond the Scriptures is a unfortunate effect of Original Sin that won't be resolved until Jesus returns.

The 30,000 number has been debunked all over the place by all sorts of Christians. It's based on one groups definition which causes problems from you just as much as it does for me.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

You haven't answered the question, you have merely linked to a document describing the nature and the composition of the church. Where is it? Christ left us this august body to bind and loose and shepherd his flock in his absence and you can't even point to it? There are how many different flavor of Protestant? Which of the 30,000+ splinter cells are carrying the mantle for Christ?

We can see where it was in the past, at all of these Councils that were led by people called "Bishops" who traced their authority back to the apostles, who then sent their findings to the Pope for confirmation.

How is this done now? And by whom?

---

I've certainly answered the question. You don't have to like it, but that's the definition used for defining a Church.

The point is God did not create an institution, but a Church. Your membership into a manmade structure does not denote you are a christian or believer. There are almost certainly many people sitting in Roman Catholic Churches who are not christians, likewise the same applies in many protestant Churches.

So you want to create a false binary.

It's quite loose to claim all these councils have bishops who can trace their authority back. That's not historically accurate, but a nice fable.

So, yes, I've answered your question.

---

I'm not even talking about the Catholic Church right now, I'm just asking you to tell me who has the Power to bind and loose right now on Earth. Where are they? How do we know who to listen to? Which teaching is authentic and which teaching leads to damnation? Where did and how did they get their authority? You say God didn't create an institution, while Protestants have created 30,000. Surely you must be able to point to 1 of them as holding the keys to the kingdom, no?

These should be easy for you to answer.

---

Apologies for not responding sooner. I take breaks from this forum off and on.

It is an easy answer. You just don't like it because you've been taught that the church must be an authoritative structure. You've asked a bunch of new questions though.

Going back to what I said: "the Christian church is, properly speaking, nothing else than the assembly of all believers and saints"

When the keys were given to the Apostles, it was given to the church and the keys can be exercised by all believers (obviously).

From the Augsburg Confession:
"[3] If we define the sacraments as rites, which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to determine what the sacraments are, properly speaking. For humanly instituted rites are not sacraments, properly speaking, because human beings do not have the authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without the command of God are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps serve to teach or admonish the common folk. [4] Therefore, the sacraments are actually baptism, the Lord's Supper, and absolution (the sacrament of repentance). For these rites have the command of God and the promise of grace, which is the essence of the New Testament.

To the rest. I'll answer them in short form.

Authentic teaching -> I'd point to the Reformation and the recover/rediscovery of the true Gospel and historical teachings. I do however recognize many heterodox groups, such as Rome where God's grace may reside and see them as Christians, though in error. (Many in Rome will say the same, though a few here call Lutherans heretics, which is fun).

Where did our authority come from? Depends on your definition of authority. God is the true authority and He gave His Church His Word to guide it. That many incorrectly claim authority beyond the Scriptures is a unfortunate effect of Original Sin that won't be resolved until Jesus returns.

The 30,000 number has been debunked all over the place by all sorts of Christians. It's based on one groups definition which causes problems from you just as much as it does for me.

---

If the Keys can be exercised by all believers, what happens when they contradict each other? Does God hate **** as Westboro is fond of saying? Or is he cool with Transgender bishops? Is the body and blood of Christ true flesh and blood? Or is it merely symbolic. Furthermore, who decides the above questions?

You still won't give me a firm answer. If Protestant church says X, and another Protestant church says 1/X, who is right? Who is authentic? How are we to know?

Your answer seems to be that there's some mystical way that they're both right because the Augsburg confession was purposefully vague to avoid any hint of "authoritarianism" where Christ wasn't.

Our entire belief structure is based on authority. Satan was kicked out of heaven for refusing to accept God's authority by Michael the Archangel whose very name asks "Who is like God?" We have the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Kingdom of Heaven and the keys to the Kingdom. You guys threw the baby out with the bath water in an attempt to show "Look how non catholic we are"