Using any version would have been helpful as the church was getting off the tracks. It is almost as if one potential use of Scripture is to be guardrails in our lives and in the life of the church.

Instead of institutional church accountability via Scripture, you chose to go with the Holy Spirit. How does that work? Does He only choose certain people within the church or reveal certain things to some. How is there ever any objective truth now that the canon is closed? Is this new revelation?

The Banned said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That is one way to put it. I did not have "The Roman/Western Catholic Church is always reforming" on my bingo card today.

What kind of checks and balances were in place that allowed some of the severe malpractice to ensue leading up to the 1500s? One of the things Pius wanted to do was institute a council to help with reforms. Seems redundant if it was already happening.

---

The Holy Spirit, can you tell me which other checks and balances other than the Holy Spirit are needed?

---

I am going to go with....Holy Scripture. Seems simple enough. Truly is amazing we cannot agree on that.

---

Without justifying or excusing corruption or bad behavior, Holy Scripture does not interpret itself.

---

So do your best to interpret it faithfully? Did the popes ever do that? College of cardinals? Bishops? Priests?

I am asking how did the Roman Church hold these immoral popes accountable whether it be church discipline or whatever terminology you want to use.

No one was like hey, maybe Alexander isn't the right guy for the job? He's sleeping around quite a bit.

---

So your point is that if the Church's internal controls and governance were more energetically and proactively enforced and that if Pope [insert name here] had been holier, sola fide would have remained an unknown concept in church history?

---

In addition to this, there is a concept of authority in which certain men can't be held accountable except by God. As father of your house, you aren't held accountable if you mistreat your wife or children by anyone other than God (provided your mistreatment isn't criminal and there is legal intervention)

---

I would be disciplined by my church

Are you saying there is no way to rebuke a Pope? Only God can?

Obviously I do not mean ANY version. A version that would not be completely counter or go away from the mainstream.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That is one way to put it. I did not have "The Roman/Western Catholic Church is always reforming" on my bingo card today.

What kind of checks and balances were in place that allowed some of the severe malpractice to ensue leading up to the 1500s? One of the things Pius wanted to do was institute a council to help with reforms. Seems redundant if it was already happening.

---

The Holy Spirit, can you tell me which other checks and balances other than the Holy Spirit are needed?

---

I am going to go with....Holy Scripture. Seems simple enough. Truly is amazing we cannot agree on that.

---

Without justifying or excusing corruption or bad behavior, Holy Scripture does not interpret itself.

---

So do your best to interpret it faithfully? Did the popes ever do that? College of cardinals? Bishops? Priests?

I am asking how did the Roman Church hold these immoral popes accountable whether it be church discipline or whatever terminology you want to use.

No one was like hey, maybe Alexander isn't the right guy for the job? He's sleeping around quite a bit.

---

So your point is that if the Church's internal controls and governance were more energetically and proactively enforced and that if Pope [insert name here] had been holier, sola fide would have remained an unknown concept in church history?

---

In addition to this, there is a concept of authority in which certain men can't be held accountable except by God. As father of your house, you aren't held accountable if you mistreat your wife or children by anyone other than God (provided your mistreatment isn't criminal and there is legal intervention)

---

I would be disciplined by my church

Are you saying there is no way to rebuke a Pope? Only God can?

---

What exactly would your church do to stop you from mistreating your family? Stop you from coming to church? Since you are receiving sacraments as a means of grace, it amounts to an aggravation at best. I'm talking about real authority.

Yes a Pope can be rebuked, and many of them have. That is very different from being held accountable inside of an authority structure. I can rebuke you as a father, but that doesn't mean I actually have any authority to wield over you. Being held accountable is you, as a father, having the power and authority to make your kid get in line when they need to. You have the authority to take away their privileges. You have the authority to pray over them and to bless them. You have the authority to disown them or welcome the wandering child back into the fold. Your kids don't get to decide any of that. What similar power do I or your church have to wield over you when we think you're wrong?

How does Rome check or know that the Holy Spirit is leading them correctly and it isn't just human wisdom or desire? How does Rome know they only they have had the help of the Holy Spirit the entirety of history?

As an example, would you say that the malpractice of indulgences was brought on by the Holy Spirit?

Vox Clamantis said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

How does Rome check or know that the Holy Spirit is leading them correctly and it isn't just human wisdom or desire? How does Rome know they only they have had the help of the Holy Spirit the entirety of history?

As an example, would you say that the malpractice of indulgences was brought on by the Holy Spirit?

---

The malpractice of selling indulgences is known as "Simony", named after Simon Magus and it has been considered a grave sin in the Catholic Church since the very beginning and specifically forbidden in councils and papal bulls since 305.

---

I don't understand obivously...one of Luther's bones to pick was over indulgences. 1200 years after 305. What am I missing? The reconstruction of Saint Peter's Basilica was funded in large part by the granting of papal indulgences.

Vox Clamantis said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

How does Rome check or know that the Holy Spirit is leading them correctly and it isn't just human wisdom or desire? How does Rome know they only they have had the help of the Holy Spirit the entirety of history?

As an example, would you say that the malpractice of indulgences was brought on by the Holy Spirit?

---

Take heart, no Catholic could hope to do anything as morally bankrupt as our first Pope

---

Are you implying that no Pope has ever been reprobate?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

How does Rome check or know that the Holy Spirit is leading them correctly and it isn't just human wisdom or desire? How does Rome know they only they have had the help of the Holy Spirit the entirety of history?

As an example, would you say that the malpractice of indulgences was brought on by the Holy Spirit?

---

The malpractice of selling indulgences is known as "Simony", named after Simon Magus and it has been considered a grave sin in the Catholic Church since the very beginning and specifically forbidden in councils and papal bulls since 305.

---

I don't understand obivously...one of Luther's bones to pick was over indulgences. 1200 years after 305. What am I missing? The reconstruction of Saint Peter's Basilica was funded in large part by the granting of papal indulgences.

---

I'd brush up on Luther's issues with the Church. He had no initial issues with indulgences themselves, but the abuse of them. As his novel doctrine of faith alone continued to progress, indulgences themselves became an issue because it was an affront to his version of the gospel. Luther in 1517 was radically different than Luther of 1523

That is fair...Luther did also say at a certain point to forget a lot of what he wrote 10 years ago. He definitely evolved. Same question stands though.

I guess the 305 reference was that indulgences were only to be for...xyz and did not strictly outlaw them?

Look forward to it!

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

That is one way to put it. I did not have "The Roman/Western Catholic Church is always reforming" on my bingo card today.

What kind of checks and balances were in place that allowed some of the severe malpractice to ensue leading up to the 1500s? One of the things Pius wanted to do was institute a council to help with reforms. Seems redundant if it was already happening.

---

The Holy Spirit, can you tell me which other checks and balances other than the Holy Spirit are needed?

---

I am going to go with....Holy Scripture. Seems simple enough. Truly is amazing we cannot agree on that.

---

Without justifying or excusing corruption or bad behavior, Holy Scripture does not interpret itself.

---

So do your best to interpret it faithfully? Did the popes ever do that? College of cardinals? Bishops? Priests?

I am asking how did the Roman Church hold these immoral popes accountable whether it be church discipline or whatever terminology you want to use.

No one was like hey, maybe Alexander isn't the right guy for the job? He's sleeping around quite a bit.

---

So your point is that if the Church's internal controls and governance were more energetically and proactively enforced and that if Pope [insert name here] had been holier, sola fide would have remained an unknown concept in church history?

---

In addition to this, there is a concept of authority in which certain men can't be held accountable except by God. As father of your house, you aren't held accountable if you mistreat your wife or children by anyone other than God (provided your mistreatment isn't criminal and there is legal intervention)

---

I would be disciplined by my church

Are you saying there is no way to rebuke a Pope? Only God can?

---

Banned may correct me on this but I am pretty sure plenty of popes have been rebuked. What has never happened and never will happen is to have a formal infallible teaching "rebuked." The promise of Jesus about his Ekklesia and to Peter was not the impeccability of its leaders or of Peter and his successors. Jesus knew when he said he would give Peter the keys of his kingdom (think Eliakim, Isaiah 22) that Peter was going to deny him and basically apostatize. He only promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the ekklesia and that Peter and his successors in possession of the keys would be protected from formally teaching error.

That's it. Scumbags and sodomites were still part of the population from which priests and bishops came. And yet, here we are today, about 2,000 years since the ekklesia was founded and it is still going despite the best efforts of evil people and hell itself to prevail against it.

Vox Clamantis said:

---

So that people like this, the so-called Catholic governor of Massachusetts, could be put to the question.

"Vengeance is mine" says the Lord, but my word what evil. The celebrating, the smiling, the applause. It puts hate in your heart

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signs the bill for abortions up to birth as Democrats celebrate. pic.twitter.com/BlfTobYbeD

— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) August 10, 2026

---

Murdering Catholics for daring to violate the pope would be an improvement over murdering Christians that aren't beholden to
Funny hat bro.

Vox Clamantis said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

How does Rome check or know that the Holy Spirit is leading them correctly and it isn't just human wisdom or desire? How does Rome know they only they have had the help of the Holy Spirit the entirety of history?

As an example, would you say that the malpractice of indulgences was brought on by the Holy Spirit?

---

The malpractice of selling indulgences is known as "Simony", named after Simon Magus and it has been considered a grave sin in the Catholic Church since the very beginning and specifically forbidden in councils and papal bulls since 305.

That is the Holy Spirit at work in the Catholic Church. The evil deeds are the work of fallen humans, without the Holy Spirit such deeds would have crushed the Church in its infancy.

Take heart, no Catholic could hope to do anything as morally bankrupt as our first Pope, who denied Christ three times in one of his greatest moments of need, and he ended up being a Martyr and a Saint.

---

A couple of follow-up questions I was pondering....

Why has Protestantism thrived for as long as it has if it is heretical? As mentioned before Arianism was crushed. Why has Sola Fide likewise not also been crushed?

Going back to your OP title, why would you wish there were still inquisitions if their have been formal apologies for such past historical behavior? Likely not an apples to apples comparison here, but the idea of using violence to crush opponents.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

How does Rome check or know that the Holy Spirit is leading them correctly and it isn't just human wisdom or desire? How does Rome know they only they have had the help of the Holy Spirit the entirety of history?

As an example, would you say that the malpractice of indulgences was brought on by the Holy Spirit?

---

The malpractice of selling indulgences is known as "Simony", named after Simon Magus and it has been considered a grave sin in the Catholic Church since the very beginning and specifically forbidden in councils and papal bulls since 305.

That is the Holy Spirit at work in the Catholic Church. The evil deeds are the work of fallen humans, without the Holy Spirit such deeds would have crushed the Church in its infancy.

Take heart, no Catholic could hope to do anything as morally bankrupt as our first Pope, who denied Christ three times in one of his greatest moments of need, and he ended up being a Martyr and a Saint.

---

A couple of follow-up questions I was pondering....

Why has Protestantism thrived for as long as it has if it is heretical? As mentioned before Arianism was crushed. Why has Sola Fide likewise not also been crushed?

Going back to your OP title, why would you wish there were still inquisitions if their have been formal apologies for such past historical behavior? Likely not an apples to apples comparison here, but the idea of using violence to crush opponents.

---

A significant number of so-called "Protestants" today reject the views of Luther and Calvin when it comes to the theology of the Eucharist or Holy Communion.

---

I mean, Luther was born and raised in the Catholic Church. It is not surprising he wasn't fully separated from some of their views, although as I understand it, he did reject transubstantiation. Calvin did not agree with Luther either.

Furthermore, I could boil down Protestantism in a simple way of saying Christians who reject the authority of the Pope and aim to follow Scripture above anything else. Why is this allowed today and not 500 years ago?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I mean, Luther was born and raised in the Catholic Church. It is not surprising he wasn't fully separated from some of their views, although as I understand it, he did reject transubstantiation. Calvin did not agree with Luther either.

---

And therein lies the point. Christians, as individuals, will always disagree. But Jesus wanted us to remain an united congregation. Hence He put certain individuals in charge to handle those disagreements, as they did in Acts. That was always the way His Church was supposed to work, did work, and still works today.

Protestantism intentionally did away with the authority that Jesus established. The authority to bind things in HEAVEN (Matthew 16). Think about how bold of an authority Jesus Himself gave His Church. Luther nerfed it in his church, and we see the results today

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I mean, Luther was born and raised in the Catholic Church. It is not surprising he wasn't fully separated from some of their views, although as I understand it, he did reject transubstantiation. Calvin did not agree with Luther either.

---

And therein lies the point. Christians, as individuals, will always disagree. But Jesus wanted us to remain an united congregation. Hence He put certain individuals in charge to handle those disagreements, as they did in Acts. That was always the way His Church was supposed to work, did work, and still works today.

Protestantism intentionally did away with the authority that Jesus established. The authority to bind things in HEAVEN (Matthew 16). Think about how bold of an authority Jesus Himself gave His Church. Luther nerfed it in his church, and we see the results today

---

As long as the guardrails of Scripture allow it. How could it be any other way? The fact we still cannot agree on the importance of Scripture is still so head scratching to me.

The Church wrote Scripture? I hadn't heard the one before.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Church wrote Scripture? I hadn't heard the one before.

---

Were the apostles not the leaders of the Church? Or were they a separate entity?

Sure, to some degree, since the Church was not established in the days of the prophets yet.

Still not sure where I see any of the NT writers giving credence to the Church for what we know as God's written word.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

How does Rome check or know that the Holy Spirit is leading them correctly and it isn't just human wisdom or desire? How does Rome know they only they have had the help of the Holy Spirit the entirety of history?

As an example, would you say that the malpractice of indulgences was brought on by the Holy Spirit?

---

The malpractice of selling indulgences is known as "Simony", named after Simon Magus and it has been considered a grave sin in the Catholic Church since the very beginning and specifically forbidden in councils and papal bulls since 305.

That is the Holy Spirit at work in the Catholic Church. The evil deeds are the work of fallen humans, without the Holy Spirit such deeds would have crushed the Church in its infancy.

Take heart, no Catholic could hope to do anything as morally bankrupt as our first Pope, who denied Christ three times in one of his greatest moments of need, and he ended up being a Martyr and a Saint.

---

A couple of follow-up questions I was pondering....

Why has Protestantism thrived for as long as it has if it is heretical? As mentioned before Arianism was crushed. Why has Sola Fide likewise not also been crushed?

Going back to your OP title, why would you wish there were still inquisitions if their have been formal apologies for such past historical behavior? Likely not an apples to apples comparison here, but the idea of using violence to crush opponents.

---

A significant number of so-called "Protestants" today reject the views of Luther and Calvin when it comes to the theology of the Eucharist or Holy Communion.

---

I mean, Luther was born and raised in the Catholic Church. It is not surprising he wasn't fully separated from some of their views, although as I understand it, he did reject transubstantiation. Calvin did not agree with Luther either.

---

Thanks. I think you might be underestimating the extent to which most of what you refer to collectively as "Protestantism" disagrees with Luther's post rebellion view on the Eucharist. Have you ever looked at the outcome of the dialogue at the Marburg Colloquy (1529) between Luther and Zwingli on this issue? Radically different views. Calvin tried to find a middle ground between the two of them and even his views on it are radically different much of the Protestant world's today.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Furthermore, I could boil down Protestantism in a simple way of saying Christians who reject the authority of the Pope and aim to follow Scripture above anything else. Why is this allowed today and not 500 years ago?

---

You're asking me to opine on why God in his providence deigns to allow a division in his Church. I would not pretend to know. But, in my very subjective opinion, God allows many evils to persist in the world. Ultimately, I believe he will bring a greater good out of this rupture in his mystical body, but otherwise I don't know.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I mean, Luther was born and raised in the Catholic Church. It is not surprising he wasn't fully separated from some of their views, although as I understand it, he did reject transubstantiation. Calvin did not agree with Luther either.

---

And therein lies the point. Christians, as individuals, will always disagree. But Jesus wanted us to remain an united congregation. Hence He put certain individuals in charge to handle those disagreements, as they did in Acts. That was always the way His Church was supposed to work, did work, and still works today.

Protestantism intentionally did away with the authority that Jesus established. The authority to bind things in HEAVEN (Matthew 16). Think about how bold of an authority Jesus Himself gave His Church. Luther nerfed it in his church, and we see the results today

---

As long as the guardrails of Scripture allow it. How could it be any other way? The fact we still cannot agree on the importance of Scripture is still so head scratching to me.

---

Are you a Mormon? A Jehovah's Witness? A Seventh Day Adventist? Because they pretty much make the same structural argument that you are making. Why should we reject them but not your chosen group?

Scripture is preeminently important. But it is not and simply cannot by FORCE OF LOGIC be the final determinant of what is and is not doctrine.

I could see that reasoning being used in the early days when there was confusion around what is Scripture, but we are past that now. We have it and it is not open to new revelation. Why can't it be used definitively now?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I could see that reasoning being used in the early days when there was confusion around what is Scripture, but we are past that now. We have it and it is not open to new revelation. Why can't it be used definitively now?

---

When would you say this issue became settled? When did we get past the point of new revelation and how?

…because I think the EO/RCC would see this very differently than Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformers… and eventually the Bible Societies of the 19th century who removed 7 OT books…
What is your answer?

Ah yes. The good old days when Catholics were free to burn christians at the stake for failing to bend the knee to an often extremly corrupt man in a funny hat.