An even bigger question is: Why are these Muslims attending Catholic education?

This school has lost its purpose.

Unfortunately, it appears the Pope has lost his purpose as well. The ship (Catholic Church) takes the course the captain (the Pope) orders

THE BIBLE doth-not say anything'bout CATHOLICS... POPES.... CLERGY-NOT-MARRIED.... .

Yes it does, but you'd actually have to read it to know that.

Nothing about popes, the verse about Peter is taken way out of context and the early church didn't even see it that way. There is nothing about clergy not getting married, in fact, it specifically states those who have strong desire need to marry. Nowhere does it imply those called to the ministry will not have strong desire. On other issues, the anti-catholics are proven wrong.

Actually, the early Church did see it that way. The Early Church Fathers are quite explicit, especially the ones who were actually taught by the Apostles themselves. And Jesus spoke of those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. What was he referring to, if not a celibate priesthood? Also, read what Paul had to say about celibacy.

I am reading what Paul said. I don't think you are. He said he WISHED all men were as he was (capable of celibacy), but that they were not and if not they SHOULD marry. Nowhere did this condition bar them from priesthood which according to Jewish tradition would be silly. Also read the Old Testament Zephaniah I believe, which prophesies that ALL men someday shall be priests and Mosaic Law that stipulates preists are to have ONE wife. (Which is why monagamy is the rule for Jews and Christians today- only Christian cults after 600 accept polygamy.) The OLDEST Christian tradition the Russian Orthodox have NEVER recognized celibacy as a requirement and they also reject the usage of the Peter verse as applying to the Roman Bishop.

The Russian Orthodox are not the oldest Christian tradition, and celibacy has never been pronounced as a doctrine anyway. Again, who are the men who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom?

I guess it is wrong to say Russian-I meant Eastern Orthodox. And you know good and well they have just as much claim to being oldest as Rome. Eunuchs being "Part" of those who serve is all that could be construed legitimately from the Text. Never does it say ALL ministers must be eunuchs. (Celibacy requirements were unheard of in Mosiac law but was VERY common amongst Roman Pagan priests and preistesses to fictitious gods. Yes, it isn't doctrine. Didn't stop that from celibacy being a sticking point of the Great Schism and causing undue division now. The RCC has become schismatic because they insist up on teaching as pure doctrine the traditions of men, something Jesus spoke harshly against-- a trait that is sadly endemic amongst most denominations.

Even the Orthodox never argued against Petrine primacy. They merely disagreed on what authority it gave the Bishop of Rome. And celibacy was not a sticking point of the Schism, because celibacy wasn't universally peacticed in the West at that time.

Name one 'tradition of men' that is taught as doctrine by the Catholic Church.

My texts said it was a subject of debate at the Schism.
Celibacy of the priesthood is a major tradition of men a pagan one at that. The Roman Church has NOT backed down on this, despite the appearance of readmitting Anglicans and letting their married priests remain- the church will eventually revert to RCC doctrine- read the fine print.
The damage this celibacy requirement has done to the church is incalculable. Not just from barring able married men from serving, but the larger problem is by encouraging those who are inept and unqualified to serve as spiritual leaders- putting men with social, emotional, sexual issues in places of leadership- worse, they must instruct and counsel parishners in family matters when they themselves are neither fathers nor husbands.
Primacy of the Pope.
Purgatory- A thing taught by no prophet, or apostle--ever.
Indulgences- STILL practiced.
Viewing the mass as a resacrifice of Christ.
Stubbornly insisting men study Scripture and worship in a language that is not their own and they have a poor grasp of the meaning of. (The Holy Scripture was not even written in Latin.) Dumping Latin is a relatively new thing.
DENYING Scripture study to the layman. Don't even try to argue that they didn't do that. Both Orthodox and RC did. If you aren't aware of this you are not very old. Scripture demands we study Scripture. The RCC was so bad at one time that even priests RARELY read Scripture.
Drinking all the communion wine by the priest. WHAT!!! That is nutter and a no brainer. Teaching only the consumption of the wafer is good enough. Jesus said Take and drink.... So we should.

Upholding Religious Works instead of actual works - i.e. moral duties such as obedience to the law, study of Scripture, prayer, worship, and serving one's neighbor with USEFUL good deeds- instead replacing these genuine works with such useless religious things that Jesus and his apostles NEVER taught- such as repeating Our Father and Hail Mary incessantly like a parrot- a thing by the way, that our Lord Jesus Christ FORBADE, or giving of alms, or pilgrimage, or walking up the stairs on the knees or dumb stuff like that as a part of repentance.
Making out salvation to be a work of man by tying men's work to it. Scripture plainly says men who are saved WILL do good works, not that they are to worry about what is good, or be told what is good work by another and forced to do it to return to the fellowship.
Jesus' parable indicates those who did good works were not even aware they did them and those who prided themselves on doing many, were merely serving the self.
Repentance may certainly have an element of humbling the self, but mostly repentance is being sincerely sorry, trying to make reparitions to the one you offended if possible, and earnestly endeavoring to not do the same again by constructing whatever barriers to sin that one needs so as not to give the self opportunity. Giving money to the church really shouldn't be a part of that endeavor, unless you wasted or stole or damaged actual church money or goods, and no priest should instruct a person that they still need to make good for their sins by punishing themselves- don't wiggle out of that one- it is well documented.
Jesus PAID for our sins. He said, "IT is finished." and it was done. I for one am glad, because there IS NO WAY I could ever make up for what I have neglected to do and done.
The beastly thing about adding works to the salvation equation Besides the fact it robs God of his Glory and gives it to man, is that the earnest man will punish himself and work himself to death on account of rightly estimating his guilt-(Yes, sometimes narcissistically over-estimate his guilt) and the false man will excuse his sin until he is caught and confronted and then engage an act of contrition/repentance that is basically useless and meaningless and walk away feeling justified.
Jesus gave no such formula. The Scripture teaches we are washed by his blood, not by our works. Our works are to FLOW FROM our redeemed condition. They do not earn redemption. One saved from the punishment they deserve WILL work from GRATITUDE. Jesus was clear on that as well. WE love him much because he LOVED US FIRST while we were still at enmity with HIM! Works- serving our neighbor with good deeds flow from a grateful attitude, not from an sense of requirement to maintain salvation.

Celibacy is not a doctrine; it is a discipline. There have been periods in the Western Church when celibacy was not i posed. Doctrines are unchangeable, handed down from the Apostles.

I don't respond to laundry lists, so pick one topic or doctrine for debate. Purgatory is scriptural, the mass is not a resacrifice of Christ, and the Bible was never forbidden to the layman, assuming the layman was able to read. And since everyone in the West who could read knew Latin up until about a century ago, your argument is just another strawman.

Umm, I think you forgot you asked for the list! (I can't read our past posts either.)
You are simply wrong about laymen reading the Scripture. They were strongly discouraged from doing so well into the fifties in America where you would think the prevalence of protestantism would have an effect. I've met Orthodox who were raised the same way(although not in America) You can say they were not forbidden, but they were STRONGLY discouraged.
Think about the "everyone who could read knew Latin" argument for five seconds and it will not hold water. First of all, few in the ancient world could read, so WHY hold services in a language they didn't even understand?
Second, it is a well known fact that once the Bible was translated into English, or whatever common tongue, men began to teach themselves to read on their own for the sole purpose of reading it. The increase of literacy in the western world is STRONGLY correlated to when the Bible was translated into the vulgar tongue of each nation. And reading the Bible is a huge motivation to learn to read in the developing world.
We certainly do NOT tell our children they can't learn to read until they master a different language. For good reason, as many people would never learn to read. Now imagine yourself going to church and hearing the service in Serbian or something. How much teaching would you actually get? One key Scriptural teaching is that the Lord speaks to us through His Word- that this is how the Holy Spirit is also spread, experienced. Churches who stand in the way of the WORD are blocking the Seed sown.
It is a sad history of the Church Universal-- not just The Roman Catholic Church that there was a movement against the translation of Scripture into the common tongues. What is sadder still was people being discouraged from study of Scripture. It is ridiculous to deny this. There is too much evidence to the contrary.
Many of the issues I brought up are NOT just issues within the RCC, other denominations have them as well. Reformation is needed church wide as a continuous process, much like individuals are called to continual repentance.

I asked for one thing, not a list. It takes enough time to answer one thing that a list would take forever, and I have a life outside Disqus.

Why hold services in a language they didn't understand? Do you have any clue whatsoever about the significance of Latin in the ancient and medieval world? Latin was the English of that time, the common language that was spoken throughout Europe. You really don't understand the overwhelming influence the Roman Empire had even after it was gone, do you?

And let's move up a bit, to the Renaissance and afterward. When men of great learning wanted to get their works out to the world, what language did they publish in? Dante was a revolutionary for writing his works in Italian, a language in its infancy. Everyone else was doing so in Latin. Galileo published his Dialogue on the Two Systems in Latin. Newton's greatest work, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, was published in Latin in 1687, nearly 80 years after the KJV was published. Why? Because every scholar on the planet knew Latin. There is a hundred times more Latin literature written in the medieval period than survives from the Roman Empire, and a hundred times more from the Renaissance forward than in the medieval period. Even today, some books are being translated into Latin for students of the language; Winnie the Pooh and Harry Potter, for example. Latin is the universal language, and it is only in the last century that its influence in popular culture has waned, thanks to the same public school system that has turned many kids into morons incapable of reading at a fifth-grade level.

Now, as to this claim literacy is the result of the Bible being translated...sorry, it doesn't wash. Literacy didn't increase because Bibles were translated; it increased, because Bibles were PRINTED. The Church had no problem translating the Scriptures; if She had, they never would have been translated into Latin in the first place. So why was the Bible translated into Latin? BECAUSE EVERYONE SPOKE LATIN.

Were you aware that there is a German translation of the Bible extant from the fourth century? Or French and Italian translations from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries? These translations were made for the express purpose of allowing people to know the Scriptures in their own language. Of course, since it cost about as much for a Bible back then as for a Ferrari today, since every single book had to be hand-copied and illustrated, not to mention a full Bible was usually gilded and bejeweled, not too many people could afford one; they were usually reserved for nobility and royalty, since they were the only ones who could foot the bill.

The Church's problem wasn't with people reading the Bible in their own language; it was that people would come up with new doctrines and interpretations that directly contradicted the teachings of the Apostles, because they decided that they knew what the Scriptures meant better than the people who actually wrote it and taught the earliest Christians. Look up the Albigensians and what they believed, and more importantly, what they were doing with the Bible. They were deliberately mistranslating it so as to deceive readers into believing that marriage was sinful, death by starvation was noble, and flesh was evil. And they used their (false) translation of the Bible to prove it to people. Three centuries later, another man would deliberately mistranslate a particular verse of the Bible to convince everyone that didn't have access to the original languages (or to the Latin) that Faith Alone was Scriptural and legit. You might have heard of him; his name was Martin Luther. And look what happened as a result: tens of thousands of different churches splintering off from each other, average one new denomination a week. Is that was Christ promised us in the Bible?

Protestants portray the Church as some sinister organization determined to twist the Scriptures around and gull people into a false Christianity solely for their own aggrandizement. In other words, Democrats. It's nothing of the sort. If the Catholic Church didn't want people to know what the Scriptures were, why translate them in the first place? For that matter, why copy them in ANY language? Why not make just enough copies for the priests and bishops, lock them away so no one can ever see them, and then teach whatever they want with no one the wiser?

It didn't work that way. There were thousands monks who spent their entire lives making copies of the Scriptures, taking 1-2 years to make a single copy because of the painstaking nature of their work. They LOVED the Scriptures so much that they hand-wrote it over and over again, making as many copies as they could before God called them home. And those Bibles were brought to every church in Europe, from the grandest cathedral to the smallest chapel. Yes, they were chained to the pulpits, but not to prevent people from reading them. They were chained for the same reason that telephone books are chained to the booth, or people lock their cars at night: to prevent theft. Again, a medieval Bible's value equaled that of a modern Ferrari. Would you leave a Ferrari outside with the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition?

No, it wasn't the reading of the Scriptures that was the problem; it was the biblically-proscribed individual interpretation of the Bible that was concerning the Church, because, as Jesus foresaw (and Peter explicitly stated in his second letter), individual interpretation led men to their own destruction. The purpose of the Church is to preserve the souls of men for heaven and lead them in the correct path taught by Jesus Christ. Individual interpretation placed a man's opinion over the teachings of Christ. Sola Scriptura really means 'Sola Me.' It's like modern liberals insisting that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you get to own a gun, according to their own interpretation. They ignore what the founders and others of that time wrote, because it doesn't fit their narrative. They got that idea from Martin Luther; ignore what came before and invent a new meaning that suits what you already believe. That is Luther's true legacy, and one for which he is no doubt the guest of honor at an eternal barbecue.

If I go to church and hear the mass in Serbian, guess what? I can open up a missalette in my own language and know what the readings and the prayers are, because they are exactly the same throughout the Catholic Church worldwide. Such misalettes did exist before, too; they weren't common prior to the printing press, but they certainly became so afterward, for the express purpose of allowing people to follow along in their own language. And more importantly, the Eucharist is there. JESUS is there, in the flesh. Language is a miniscule barrier to the glory of God, and if I pray along in English while everyone else is saying the Lord's Prayer in Serbian, well...Jesus is a polyglot, and knows exactly what I'm saying, doesn't he?

Once the printing press got going, there were dozens of German translations being printed before Martin Luther was even born. And there were translations in English, as well. Funny thing, though: prior to the KJV, the English Crown actually had to pass a law requiring people to purchase a Bible in English, because booksellers demanded it. Why? Because nobody was buying them. They weren't interested. And of course, the most important English translation, the Douay-Rheims, was outlawed and burned in England because it was produced by the Catholic Church. The KJV translators stole liberally, often entire passages, from the DR, because it was the best English translation available. Yes, Protestants burned Bibles they didn't like. So much for that 'devotion and love of the Bible' I keep hearing about.

Okay now for the second part response for the last part of what you wrote. Some of the earlier translations of the Scripture in English were rather poor (I have read them) and same is said of the early German ones. Jerome wasn't the first one to translate Scripture in Latin, he did so because the translation made before him were poor.
And a large part of the motivation of forbidding the common man to read Scripture historically has also come from the state. Monarchists saw it as a threat to the legitimacy of the the monarchy. It was. Look there is no ONE entity to blame for suppression of Scriptures, I have said this a few times now.
But the fact remains that there are many alive still alive today who were conned into believing the Bible was too hard to understand and only priests should do so and still refuse to read it today, and this was actively promoted by both The RCC and the OC up to the fifties. I have met these people-- my aunt and my daddies best friend -RCC and OC respectively. That is not to say ALL churches/priests were teaching this. But enough to make a dent. It is a primary complaint.
The huge matter here is not to replace the gospel presented in the New Testament with a false one, because there are so many different ways to misinterpret and go wrong we must continue to correct what ill we see. This is an act of love to do so.
Fact of the matter is people of ill intent will take teachings in a way that suits their evil inclinations REGARDLESS of what church they go to to. Some Catholics will go to confession, do the acts of penance and go right on sinning as boldly ever before. It isn't that the Catholic teachings say this. Some protestants will confess and do the same. Nor does the protestant tradition say this is acceptable. BOTH parties need to be chastised for doing so and the Old Testament teaches God will not be mocked. The warnings are there if we will but read.
IF the church would come together in humility to correct errors they see in each other in a kindly way the church would be so much greater. What we see instead is arrogance and a failure to change what is obviously unscriptural bad practice that leads mankind to mock God.
I will close with Luther. Lots of liberals misquote Luther as attributing human conscience as what is to guide men. NOPE Luther said he was BOUND by the HOLY SCRIPTURE- the revelations of the prophets and apostles. He asked to be corrected by means of that revelation ALONE. The cannon was closed long ago. It is wrong to add to it or to be sneaky and add to it by means of traditions, reason, moralism, or mystical experience. That is a backdoor to altering the WORD.

I can't imagine why people would think the Bible is difficult to understand...

2 Peter 3:15-16 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Now, if you were specifically charged by God to ensure that people knew the truth about Jesus, and if you were inspired not only to write infallibly, but teach infallibly, and if you knew that the oral teachings were equal in importance to what was written down, AND if you knew that the Holy Spirit would prevent your successors from teaching in error, would you not want to make absolutely sure that people WEREN'T coming up with their own doctrines that contradict the teachings of Christ? Yes, we are to read the Bible ourselves, but we are NOT to interpret it for ourselves. Laymen were not given the charism of infallible interpretation. And no individual can be sure that their interpretation is correct. Just as an example, there are dozens of different interpretations on the meaning of baptism. Is it necessary or not? Is it a symbol or is it salvific? Is baptism for infants and children, or just for those who've reached a certain age? And yes, your eternal salvation could rest on getting the right answer to that and to dozens if not hundreds of other questions that the Scriptures DO NOT explicitly answer. Are you seriously willing to risk losing heaven because you misunderstood what the Scriptures mean? Are you seriously willing to risk the eternal fire because you got it wrong? I'm not. And neither is Jesus, which is why He left us a Church before He left us a Bible. The layman reads the Bible; the Church interprets the Bible. And when you have men like Luther and Calvin running around inventing entirely new and false doctrines like Sola Fidei, Sola Scriptura, and OSAS, the Church had a pretty compelling reason to tell people not to go it alone. They're not in this for the money, they're in it for Jesus and to save souls, because Jesus commanded them to do so.

As for Martin Luther, I'll let his own words condemn him. From his On Translation, An Open Letter: http://www.bible-researcher...

"Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: "Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope...I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there."

Does that sound like a man who's putting the Scriptures above everything else, or a man who's putting himself above everything else? Oh, and by the way, Luther was a vicious denunciator of heretics. And who did he consider a heretic? Why, anyone who's interpretation of the Scriptures didn't agree with him of course. Sola Scriptura? Hardly. Sola Luther, is more like it. And, as you put it, that's altering the WORD, not to be clearer on what the writer meant to say, but to change its meaning to what the translator wants it to say.

Do you know when the canon was closed, by the way? And who closed it? And why they did so? More to the point, can you point to a time in Christianity where Scripture Alone was ever followed?

Luther was sarcastic, dark, rude, and humorous. He spoke passionately, sometimes without thought to how his words would be later used and later worried about this, predicting his words would be used in bad ways. He is easily pulled out of context. He once went into great detail about how reason is a whore. Luther LOVES reason. But he recognizes reason can be used for ANY purpose and is merely a slave to the premises it is given.
Even Lutherans do not agree with everything he said, even LUTHER doesn't agree with everything he said! I'd have to go back and look at the context of this quote, because it really sounds like sarcasm and mockery for which he was quite known. The original greek texts would NOT have sola in them. So his comment there strikes me more as a joke. I'll have to read about it later.
And no, he didn't denounce EVERYONE who opposed him as an heretic. I just studied that recently. To prove this as well, Lutherans accept the baptism of many many many churches, even those who reject covenental baptism. IF I were to join just about any other church, my children's baptism's would not be considered acceptable. We accept other Christian baptisms, As long as it is done in the name of the triune God.
One of the main points of Lutheranism is NOT TO SPEAK where Scripture doesn't. There simply isn't a need to answer many questions not addressed in Scripture and most heresies begin when these impossible and needles quests begin. I am not trying to be rude, but just look at the seminal theory and other debates within Christendom that were really just silly wastes of time. WE know Jesus was sinless because God told us he was, we have no need to try to figure out HOW that is so. Nothing in our salvation hangs on understanding How Jesus came to be without sin.
My pastor says "I don't know." more than any other pastor I have sat under. As t the Bible being hard to understand- well, much of it is actually quite plain as the nose on your face. This is what we should read. When we read difficult passages one is to proceed with great care consulting the best and learned men and it is to be assumed that those who lived closer to the time would get a better answer than those who came hundreds of years later. Luther avidly read Augustine, etc. Lutherans do not do away with reading of the church fathers and really sought retain everything the Church had right. They are totally unlike protestants who have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and get rid of anything that even slightly looks Catholic and are really just mindlessly anti-Catholic. We speak against what needs to be spoken against and there is WRONG when indulgences are sold- wrong that STILL has not been repented of. Placing burdens on men with sensitive consciences is also WRONG. Especially when those with no conscience are made to think paying a fee or saying a few hail Marys or visiting a shrine will get them clearance. This is very, very, very wrong teaching. Protestants are just as wrong to think forgiveness can be given when the person has little intention to pursue repentance.

So we should only read the parts that are quite plain as the nose on your face? I thought we were supposed to know ALL the Scriptures. More to the point, why is it that 'the plain meaning of Scripture' only applies when the plain meaning agrees with what the Protestant believes? The most obvious examples are John 6 and the four accounts of the Last Supper, in which Jesus says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life, and then states clearly, 'This IS my body' and 'This IS my blood.' Not 'represents' or 'symbolizes,' but 'IS.' And the most common objection I hear to that 'plain and simple meaning' is exactly what the many followers of Jesus said at that time: "How can he give us his flesh to eat?" or variations thereof. Then there are dozens of convoluted explanations to justify the rejection of the plain and simple meaning of the text. And yet, as you so aptly put it, WE know the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ because God told us it was, we have no need to try to figure out HOW that is so.

When we read difficult passages, one is NOT to proceed with great care, consulting the best and learned men. That is exactly how we ended up with thousands of different churches all claiming to have the truth. Jesus didn't say 'check with the best and learned men' when you have an issue. He said, 'Take it to the Church.' He clearly and unequivocally set up a physical Church on Earth to deal with all those difficult questions and passages so that we could be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that we are being told the gospel truth. And He also clearly and unequivocally promised that His Church would be protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit. He notably did NOT say that men could read the Bible for themselves and instantly know what was correct doctrine.

If one is not to speak when Scripture is silent, then why didn't the Apostles say that? Nowhere does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians. That is not only unscriptural, it directly contradicts Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Sola Scriptura is nothing more than a license for men to look within for authority rather than to God, justifying that choice by claiming the Holy Spirit guides them. Well, the Holy Spirit doesn't guide people into thousands of different truths; there's only one, and it's been around publicly for 2,000 years. Luther's doctrines aren't defensible in Scripture or in the Early Church Fathers; they are his own invention, and thus cannot be applicable to authentic Christianity.

And another thing about the 'Scripture is silent' argument: Luther was asked about polygamy, and had to admit that Scripture didn't say anything against it. The closest it comes is saying that a Bishop must have but one wife. It doesn't say anything about laymen or even priests. Is it any wonder the Mormons had no issues with polygamy? And yet we know that polygamy is wrong and against the teachings of the Apostles. Why? Because they SAID so, regardless of whether or not they wrote it down in a letter. That's Apostolic Tradition, which is as binding on Christians as the limited amount of information written in the New Testament.

Luther started off fine with his 95 Theses; he was right, there were abuses in the Church that needed to be corrected, and Leo X was a terrible example for the papacy. But it's what Luther did afterward, rejecting the Church completely and cutting not only himself, but millions of others off from the true Body of Christ all to satisfy his own arrogance. Calling himself the only doctor worth listening to, better than all the doctors of the Church? Give me a break. The man was delusional at best.

Look up St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, who was a contemporary of Luther. He, too, saw problems in the Church and worked to correct them. But unlike Luther, he did not place himself above the Church founded by Jesus Christ. He stayed within the Church, founding the Jesuit order and advancing the cause of Christianity within the framework provided by God. Ignatius worked to repair the house; Luther gave up, tried to burn it down and built his own. But no man, not Luther, not Calvin, not Leo X, not anyone, can burn down the Church built by Christ.

PS- I have enjoyed our discussion. I appreciate the stay and fight it out mindset. I understand and respect it. You won't find me saying Catholics are all bad and going to hell. My grandma was a died in the wool Southern Baptist and REFUSED to teach such things to her young charges in the Sunday School- even when encouraged by the times. I never got to know her, but I respect her so much.

Well I believe it IS as well! You will get no argument there! We bar all from communion who do not believe it IS. And yes, We do not need to go into reasoning to explain why or HOW it is so. Do you understand my point that this incessant need to speak where Scripture doesn't, to explain things where no explanation is given is EXACTLY where so many divisions within the church occur? Everyone wants to jump in and theorize on this or that then they get angry about some other group who differs when really they are just theorizing.
No, I mean if a lay person reads Scripture and they cannot understand a difficult bit and cannot resolve it with other texts, they should seek a more learned person. There is quite enough to study and master that one CAN easily understand. So to refuse to read Scripture on that ground is very foolish and rebellious. To think priests encourage such rebellion is painful.
We ask questions of our pastor all the time on the big and difficult texts. We don't simply ignore them. He will plainly state he doesn't know on some, he will explicate others using other Biblical texts. Sometimes he will go into the differing thoughts of those learned saints who have gone before us. But the end is often, "we THINK, but we are not sure."
Lutherans condemn making a requirement of things that are not, or making a doctrine of things not clearly adressed that are really just merely side issues or opinions of men. This is plainly schismatic behavior.
Look, Luther did NOT want what happened to happen, but the Church would NOT change. They still sell indulgences and are thoroughly unrepentant about it to this very day. I am glad people stayed in the Roman Catholic Church and fought for the purity of the gospel of forgiveness through Jesus alone without the need for filthy lucre. That is great, but it apparently only corrected the more obvious abuses, as the actual behavior didn't cease.
The fact is the Church was already spilt in 1050. So why are you not questioning the Orthodox or the RC as to why they did the terrible thing of splitting? Because to your way of thinking, didn't they do just as terrible a thing?
And no, Luther didn't burn down the church. He did exactly what Colossians (I think) says to do to the one who claims to be a brother yet continues to engage in sin (the sin of swindling) he broke communion with them and treats them as unbelievers who must be evangelized. THIS IS BIBLICAL. They were intent on continuing the swindling of selling indulgences a swindling that would result in the damnation of those buying and selling. Luther reluctantly did EXACTLY what Scripture teaches. And, he was very reluctant about it.
One interesting thing to note is this, the church didn't split in half at the reformation, it shattered.
NONE of the other protestant groups came FROM Lutheranism.
None are off shoots. They all look at us as "too Catholic."
IN fact, NO other group with differing doctrine has split off from Lutheranism to this day.

No other group? Are you sure about that? I count nearly 300 of them here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

As to the Schism, yes, it's a bad, bad thing and we do need to rectify that. But that's only a schism, a difference of opinion stemming from a few small technicalities (such as the filioque). And yes, there's politics involved as well. But the Orthodox are still authentically Christian, holding to the Apostolic Oral Tradition and teaching the same doctrines as the Apostles did two thousand years ago. Protestantism is a far greater problem, in that it openly denies Apostolic teaching in favor of modernist interpretations of the Bible, claiming to understand the Scriptures better than the people who wrote them.

You say that if someone doesn't understand a passage, they should go to a more 'learned' person. How do you know that learned person is right? What's their authority to say 'this passage is to be interpreted as X'? What if they're wrong, and your misplaced trust causes you to stray from the path of the gospel, even reject something the Apostles taught was definitive? No man can be sure that he is 100% correct in his interpretation; that's why Jesus left us a Church, so that we COULD know why.

And the quest to understand 'why' something is the way it is exists because God made us that way. We are meant to inquire, to seek knowledge, to want to understand the truth. We don't always find the answers, but that doesn't stop us from wanting to do so and continuing the quest. That's the story of humanity, but also and especially Christianity. That's why so many great scientists were Catholic clergy, or at least Catholic-trained. Remember, it wasn't the Church that attacked Galileo the most; it was the Lutherans and Calvinists who said that Galileo was a heretic for teaching that the earth moved around the sun. The Catholic Church said, 'prove it.' The Protestants said, 'burn him.'

You claim that the Church still sells indulgences. What's your source for that? Because it's not happening. Indulgences (which are scriptural, far more so than the doctrine of Sola Fidei) are not to be sold, but they are certainly available for those who seek them. Reading the Bible earns an indulgence. The Corporal Works of Mercy do the same. Money has nothing to do with it. And it's clear you're completely unfamiliar with the Counter-Reformation and what actually happened at Trent, because the Church DID clean up the abuses that were going on at the time. It took time to overcome the inertia, but the Church nevertheless did what had to be done. You need to look into these claims against the Church, and test them.

That's the question I keep asking. Muslims attack, rape, and murder Christians every chance they get and yet they are in catholic schools. The clergy in the school accommodate instead of standing up for Christian principle and teaching.

Look, Frankie says that we aren't tolerant enough. He's the pope, so there. Priests are murdered in the street and nuns raped and he calls the perpetrators "peaceful" and we should embrace them. He works for somebody but I doubt very much that somebody is God.

Why? Infiltration of every US institution is a vital part of civilization jihad, and our universities are the most important targets, after government.

It's free for them
The U gets federal $ based on 'quotas' (They call it diversity)

Pope in concert with globalist cabal..they cant destroy us the way they did europe...so the work from within..illegals across border, pope and jesuits in the churches and schools. It is absolutely mind boggling, a shouts loudly that Dolan not only attended Met Gala, most publicly demonic event, but attempted to defend it! Incredible!! Cabal and partners deep state like black mold..may not find it in time. Thank God, our POTUS and admin have the goods on everyone!

It's the same here in STL, I work for a Catholic university, we've installed foot baths in our newer dorms, they have their own worship center (Mosque?) here on campus, we kiss their rears, they walk around here like they own the place, we are catholic in name only, the only real religion they follow here is liberalism.

...read THE BIBLE..... NO CATHOLIC in it....... .

This school is a sham, asking for a boycott... Christ is incompatible with Satan (Mo is a creation of Satan), but money is more important than Jesus to some folks.

All the Christian students need to do is line up and ask for withdrawal papers. This crap would end tomorrow.

Hope they do just that.

https://www.tfpstudentactio...

To take over and build their mosque, implant sharia law on the backs of the other students who pay full tuition.

It is a part of the invasion...

PRECISELY!

It's a Catholic organization.....you actually thought they were teaching Christian ideology? moral values? you've not been listening to the last 50 years from all the globalist hierarchy of the Vatican have you?

Do they have a head chopping area too?

...a queer flying lesson rooftop?

Great question

Maybe Islam's faith in Muhammed and the Muslims will invite Catholics and Christians to their worshiping centers, think ?

Don't Muslims have their own Colleges? And if so, would Catholic students enjoy the same conditions at them?

Good point.

That was my first question
My second question was ..is the catholic faith co opted by the globalists? I see the pope all the time making traitorous statements ..is this more of the same?

yes

They have lost God

The same reason gays order wedding cakes from Christians.

I was going to ask the same thing.

Muslim savages are neither assimilating nor compatible with Western society. They should not be here at the first place. They should be deported for public safety and national security reasons. No Muslim, no problem. That's why smart Asian nations Japan, Korea, China, Vietnam, Myanmar, etc. don't let the Trojan Horse in like the West. Western Europe is gone. America is next if American patriots don't defend their homeland.

Ramadan is next week. What does that mean? Be ready or be dead by the annual massacre of kuffar by these immoral, moronic followers of Islamic death cult.

Probably because there are a thousand schools vying for students.

Exactly. If St. Ambrose were truly Catholic no muslim in the world would even think about attending, that is if they were truly muslim. First Principles, St. Ambrose. Why are you there?