Once again, you need to look closer. The "selling" of indulgences was never a formal teaching of the Catholic Church, but was rather a regional abuse of the Christian doctrine of indulgences by certain leaders during the late Renaissance Period.
But---as you have already admitted---your preferred interpretations of the Bible are NOT authoritative. Whose doctrinal tradition, then, DOES have the authority to interpret Divine Revelation in a manner which is binding upon believers? I've already shown that only Christ's one historic Catholic Church possesses such inherent doctrinal authority, and that no recently-invented, man-made non-catholic sect can possibly claim such binding authority.
Just another unsubstantiated assertion from you. Post your proof.
If you stopped drinking the Kool-Aid fed to you by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect and read the Bible through the interpretive lens of Christ's one historic Church, you would not see the "Church of Christ" sect. (See how that works?)
Rather:
That's correct: "According to the authoritative teachings of that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself..." This is something that your favored man-made sect could never claim.
No "spin," just historical fact. However, you need to tell yourself that it's nothing but spin in order to cling to the anti-Catholic opinions of men that you've been fed by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. To this point, you simply don't want to know the truth badly enough. I can relate, since I've been there myself.
Already decisively answered in a previous post above.
More unsubstantiated rhetoric. If your favored man-made sect ever manages to provide actual proof for any of its anti-Catholic claims, be sure to let me know.
..."faithful" to the mere human opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway.
And yet, the very same applies to you regarding your favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, though you can't yet acknowledge that fact.
In fact, the Bereans in no way held to sola scriptura, which did not even exist until Protestant schismatics invented it during the 16th-century so-called "reformation." See this.
...with whose infallibly authoritative interpretations of Scripture? Not yours, since you've already acknowledged that your personal interpretations are not infallible, and so are therefore not authoritative. And not those of your favored recently-invented, man-made sect, since its non-authoritative opinions are nothing more than the mere traditions of men. Whose, then?
Addressed here.
Like I said... (Post #228).
You are opposed to the Catholic Church and her authoritative teachings. In this sense, you are indeed anti-Catholic.
Then you should definitely disagree with your own man-invented "Church of Christ" sect, since it is merely one of the 50,000+ competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in existence today, with more "dividing Christ's church" every week.
Cruciform;4396545 Then you should definitely disagree with your own man-invented "Church of Christ" [B said:
Bitter water doesn't pour from a pure well. Likewise, true doctrine does not come from a merely man-made sect which cannot demonstrate itself to be that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which he declared that the powers of death would never prevail (Mt. 16:18; 1 Tim. 3:15). Again, you have nothing but the mere opinions (traditions) of men.
:darwinsm:... Common, really? Just because some guys in the 19th century decided to name their sect "Church of Christ" certainly doesn't mean that their man-made sect actually IS that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. And, as the chart I posted demonstrates, your preferred sect is anything but.
As I acknowledged, if you truly believe in Jesus and have been properly baptized, you are placed in a certain relationship with the Catholic Church and, by that means, may be called a "Christian" and may in the end be saved (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Par. 838). That being said, the Catechism also issues this sober warning:
Already categorically refuted (Post #225).
You follow the mere interpretations and opinions of the human teachers in your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. Your False Dilemma Fallacy, however, is noted.