> Your response, only revealed that you are, as most protestants, ignorant about what the church teaches.

          I will withhold judgment on that statement for now, but it remains to be seen where I made a mistake.

> You say that no human ever had the power to bind and loose. Jesus gave the apostles that power. Jesus also established a church and put the apostles in charge of it. This is explicitly stated in all bibles. Thus the Church began by Jesus was run by the apostles and kept up by their successors, as in scripture they appointed others to the same ministry.

          Jesus may have given the apostles the power to forgive sins, but in no way does that obligate God to forgive the sins. What transpires among men is the business of men, what transpires between an individual and God is between that individual and God.

          Regarding statement 1: you have iterated what I claim is the position of the Catholic church. I was not wrong in what I claim to be the RC church teaching, even though I disagree with it.

> You make mistakes when you cite catholic teaching.

          Well, you were wrong the last time you said that.

> If you think in historical terms, you will understand that early in the history of the Catholic Church, in particular after the fall of Rome, many people were illiterare and could not have the means to procure a bible as they were hand copied and given only to churches. This is due to the simple fact that the only very educated people were the priests and bishops. They could read and write whereas most of the population could not. So to say that the Catholic Church had a policy to keep people from reading the bible is most erroneous.

          Everything you have said thus far is utterly irrelevant. I said that the Bible was on the Index of Forbidden Books and possession of a Bible could get one sent to the stake. The first version of the Index of Forbidden Books was written in the 16th century, almost a millennium after the event you are discussing. By the time the Index was written, the printing press was in use. Indeed, creating the Index was one of the ways in which the church responded to the invention of the printing press.

          And even if I overlook those facts, even in the early second millennium, the Bible in the vernacular was still restricted to the common man. Possession of even one of the books of the Bible in the vernacular could get one sent to the stake.

> The forementioned conditions were rampant throughout Europe for many years after Rome fell.

          Yes, and you neglect to mention the role the church played in bringing about those conditions. The church was famous for pitting one side against the other and then stepping in to moderate the dispute as a way of increasing its power and destabilizing the competition.

> Plagues, invasions and all sorts of misfortunes kept most of the populace in a poor state of being that was beyond the capacity of the church to handle.

          Yes. Needing lots of money to build fancy cathedrals for the bishops cost a lot of money, too. Have you ever been to Europe and seen a cathedral? Impressive. Lots of money and work went into them, money that could have been spent building a public infrastructure or educating the populace.

> In this instance, there was a vacuum being filled by the church. Mainly due to the lack of legal, educational and administrative bodies that could run a society and govern it simply did not exist. Thus the church took on all these responsibilities.

          And when the kings established their own secular universities to train officials for government posts, the church squealed like a stuck pig. The church did not want to give up its monopoly on the ability to read and write and the attendant power that went with the monopoly.

> Education was one of the primary functions of the church. They taugh whoever they could to read and write.

          No, they didn't. They taught whoever could afford to pay them and who were willing to join religious orders. The church did not get into the business of educating the masses for a price that even the less advantaged could afford until the 19th century when secular governments instituted a system of free, secular (or Protestant) public education. Then the church educated the children of their parishioners as a way of keeping control over what was being taught to the faithful.

> Even then, knowledge of the world was limited but the Catholic Church had most of this information as they were around the known world. With the few people who could successfully learn to read and write, they were promoted to the level of cleric. They helped in the copying of bibles. Still, bibles were few and far between and were in need of replacement as soon as one was finished. Thus it would not only not be profitable for everyone to have a bible but it was also, in practical terms, an impossible task even if all could read.

          There is some truth to the above. All books were quite expensive. Vellum, sheep skin, which was used in lieu of paper was expensive and often reused. As you noted, until about the 15th century, all books were hand copied, making them very expensive and rare.

> As to your saying that, to a catholic, thinking about religious matters is heresy, you are wrong there also.

          Nope. Suspicion of heresy was a crime for which many went to the stake. The charge was suspicion of heresy, not heresy, because there was no evidence that the accused actually was a heretic - it was enough that the Inquisitor believed that the person thought some action indicated heretical ideas to get one accused of suspicion of heresy.

          For example, assisting a heretic in any way was cause for a person to be accused of suspicion of heresy. Suppose Person A had been accused (and the burden of proof was on the accused to prove his innocence) of heresy, had abjured his heresy, and been released (which is not nearly as benign of a process as it sounds. At a minimum, all of the possession of a heretic were confiscated; he was tortured, perhaps to the point of suffering life long injury and pain; and he spent his life living under a cloud of suspicion, for if any one accused him of heresy, he was automatically arrested and sent to the stake as a relapsed heretic.) If Person B gives Person A a few cents to buy a crust of bread, Person B could come under suspicion of heresy. The church could and did write all of the rules and interpret them any way it felt like interpreting them. The church tried the accused and turned the victim over to the state for punishment. If the civil authorities refused to enact the required punishment (like burning at the stake for a heretic), the civil authorities were accused of heresy as favorers of heresy and were liable to the stake themselves. People were sent to the stake for the most trivial offenses. Whatever worldly goods the accused had were forfeit and were divided 3 ways, 1/3 to the church, 1/3 to the state, 1/3 to the person making the accusation. The church was widely believed to be running little more than an extortion racket for centuries.

> The church by its very nature, has been and always will be a teaching church. Not only has the church consistently built and run schools and univerities but also seminaries. To think about religious matters was and still is considered a very pious thing to do. We do it every time we say the rosary.

          Oh, I am willing to admit that the church encourages you to think about religious matters - as long as you think what the church teaches you to think. Any departure from church beliefs could get you the stake.

          Did you find out what ipso facto excommunicaiton is and what can get you ipso facto excommunicated?

> However if you meant that thinking about things against the church is heresy, that is also false. Heresy means that one not only holds but espouses to others a teaching that is false. Such as if one were to preach to others that Christ was not truly divine. That is a heresy. But to think and preach about the truth of the Trinity is no heresy at all.

          Once again, as long as a person teaches what the church tells you to teach, the church does not consider you a heretic. Depart from church teachings and the church considers you to be a heretic. Indeed, you didn't have to teach any one anything to be accused of heresy. You didn't have to discuss anything with anyone to be accused of heresy. Possession alone of works on the Index of Forbidden Books, even if you were unable to read or write, was cause enough to be accused of either heresy or suspicion of heresy.

> I am frankly puzzled by your claim that catholic dogma is inherently inferior to the dogma of "competing" christian churches.

          I mean just this: I think my ideas about Christian dogma are superior to the teachings of the RC church. I assume you believe that the teachings of the church to which you belong are superior to my ideas. After all, I don't expect you to have an attitude like, "Here, my ideas are inferior to yours, please adopt them." That is completely all right by me, as long as you are willing to allow me to believe that my ideas are better than yours. I ask nothing from you except the same courtesy which I am willing to extend to you.

> First of all, I know many churches have no dogma whatsoever. To them, to have any unbending dogmatic teachings is heretical in of itself. Secondly, from what I know of the "competing" churches such as the Lutheran church, its "dogma" is very similar to the dogma of the Catholic Church. But anyway, to consider the source of dogma in the Catholic Church as opposed to the other christian denominations, we must look at their origins. As no other christian church predates the Catholic Church, nor can claim to have apostolic origins, then it follows that their dogma is man made. The Catholic Church alone can justifiably claim Jesus Christ as its founder.

          Oh, BS. Many Protestants feel that the Protestant religions are the true successors to the apostles -- that the Catholic church was so corrupt during the middle ages and the Renaissance that whatever claim the RC church once had to apostolic succession was transferred to the various Protestant churches during the Protestant Reformation.

> When you said Catholics believe the Pope holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven, you are wrong there too.

          To discuss who holds the keys to heaven and to discuss the power to loose and to bind sins are one and the same thing. Either the church has the power to loose and to bind sin, thereby deciding who goes to heaven and who goes to hell or the church does not have such power.

> The Church teaches that only Peter holds those keys as given to him by Jesus. That is clearly stated in scripture. Why protestants doubt this is merely due to the fact that either God has blinded them to the truth as He did the jews, or that the protestants have blinded themselves by their hatred of what they mistakenly believe the Catholic Church is all about.

          Oh, yes. Get beaten by a woman in a theological discussion and cry anti-Catholic bigotry. Act like a man.

> Now to your supposition that feminism is a biblical or moral force, because it was espoused in a book written in the 15th century.

          Obviously you misunderstood why I included the quote from Christine de Pizan's Book of the City of Ladies. I included the quote to get you to think about an alternate interpretation of the creation story in Genesis - one that, to a Protestant like me, is as valid as the interpretation taught by your church.

> If you hold sola scriptura as you say protestants do, then why cite anything other than scripture as something to believe in as God given? This is a contradiction that many protestants make. They cite things outside the bible to prove what is in the bible.

          Reading other people's commentary on the Bible doesn't mean that you do not believe in sola scriptura . You can increase your understanding of scripture by reading what others have to say about it, by discussing the text with other people, and by listening to a minister preach a sermon. You can also increase your understanding of scripture by reading what others write about other people's biblical commentary. Coming to an interpretation of the Bible in such a way does not mean that you do not believe in sola scriptura for you have not substituted man's interpretation of the Bible for the Bible - the Bible is still the final authority.

> If you truly read scripture, you would know that there are many things that are important that are not mentioned in scripture. These things are important and need to be taught, otherwise why would Jesus feel the need to establish a church at all? He could have simply told the apostles what to write and we would have all the answers we need about everything. But God entrusted His Church to men, the apostles and their successors.

          I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion at hand.

> One of the biggest and most notable flaws in protestant churches is the fact that most of the "mainline" churches do not abide by the founders of their church at all. Lutherans, for example do not even know for the most part what Luther believed in. One example, the Lutherans dont honor Mary, but Luther did. He also believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. He also made a notable quote about the Catholic Church. Namely that without it, there would be no bible at all. Even he acknowledged that the Catholic Church is due the credit for deciding what books to include in the new testament.

          Yes, most Protestants believe that people who lived 4 or 5 centuries ago are not the final authorities on the meaning of the Bible. As humanity advances, so does our interpretation of the Bible. Take, for instance, the issue of slavery. Two centuries ago it was widely practiced in much of Christendom - today we think of one man owning another man with abhorrence. Our understanding of the meaning of loving one's neighbor has changed. The emphasis on tolerating what the law allowed was replaced by an instance that man treat his fellow man in a way that is much better than the minimum acceptable biblical standard.

> Another apparent flaw in the protestant churches, is the tendency to split when differences arise. The Catholic Church calls councils to decide the matter, while protestants leave and start another church somewhere else. This is due to the lack of a central authority in the protestant churches. They love their liberty from a central authority but as a result, there are over 25,000 separate christian denominations in the US alone according to the 1990 census. Moreover, the vast majority of these denominations do not find agreement with many of the other denominations, even those who split as they did, from their parent church. One can thus find two Gospel churches side by side, but yet they may teach wildly different things and agree on nothing the other one teaches.

          You see religious freedom and diversity as a flaw. I don't. I could criticize the Catholic method of resolving conflicts in doctrine if I wanted to. I could, for instance, make the point that you don't resolve the meaning of scripture by taking a vote on what the Bible means. After all, what if the issue comes up for a vote again in 50 years and the other side wins? Does that mean the first vote is invalid?

> Also, the sola scriptura teaching found in most protestant denominations has inherent problems with it. First and foremost, it is unscriptural. Nowhere in scripture does it say that the bible alone holds all truth and can guide someone to heaven. To the contrary, 1 Tim 3:15 says that the "church of the living God is the pilar and foundation of truth." Which church might this be describing?

          Well, seeings as it would be 3 centuries before the Catholic church emerged, I don't think Timothy was talking about the RC church. Maybe he met the entire Christian church.

> Certainly not one that originated 16 centuries later. Certainly not the Jewish faith either. This was the Church founded by Jesus, as found in scripture, and led by the apostles.

          Well, Jesus did not found the Catholic church. Jesus founded the Christian church. Big difference.

          Use that argument again and I'll be forced to mention the widespread simony and the sexual excesses of many of the medieval and Renaissance Popes and to ask you to reconcile the buying and selling of church offices and several hundred years of drunken, sexally obsessed, gluttonous popes and prelates with the notion that they faithfully transmitted the doctrines of Christ.

> Another problem with sola scriptura, is that two people can interpret the same passage of scripture two different ways. If sola scriptura was a sound teaching, then scripture would be straight forward and easy to understand and everyone would arrive at the same conclusions.

          Well, what makes you think the Pope and RC church councils have a better interpretation of scripture than Protestant church councils?

> For if two people disagree about a certain thing, at least one of them, if not both, are wrong. Also, sola scriptura falls apart in a historical sense. In the early years of christianity, bibles were not available at all. Yet somehow the christian church endured persecutions, martyrdom, plagues and wars and still flourished. All this was done without a bible to read but the teaching of the apostles.

          Like I said, what makes you think the Pope got it right? Maybe one or the other of the Protestant denominations is correct on issue A and another of the Protestant denominations is correct on issue B.

> If protestants were truly bible believers, they would sense that from reading the new testament and in particular the letters of Paul, they were written to address specific problems in certain churches.

          Yep.

> While one may glean some of the teaching of the apostles from these letters, they only get what the writer felt was needed to address that particular problem and miss out on the whole of the apostles' teaching. For instance, Paul often wrote to some church telling them about his plans to visit them. He would often say he would visit for a time of two or three months with them. If that is so, would Paul confine himself to what was written in the letter he wrote some months before? Also Paul urges those in the churches he wrote to, to hold on to the traditions he taught them by word or letter. While he did not expound in the letter what exactly those teachings are, they must have been important for him to urge them so. To think these are not important because they are not mentioned in the letter, that is nonsense. Paul obviously felt these "traditions" were important to pass on to those he taught as a means of holding on to the truth of Christianity. Now even though these traditions are not mentioned in scripture, they are part of the Deposit of Faith, as given us by the apostles and their successors. The Catholic Church has always had these while protestant churches who have their own "traditions", such as sola scriptura, are totally ignorant of them.

          Could not the Protestants adopt the "Deposits of Faith" which the RC church held when they split from the RC church? If so, what is the relevance of this point?

          I will reply to one more message from you. I have spent enough time on this already. But you are well mannered so our discussion has been somewhat enjoyable.

Sunny

Back to Mail