"I can remember a nun tellin us that the mark of a Catholic Chruch was that a candle would be burining. Is that not a teaching (a doctrine)"
Man ya haven't got a clue. No it is a (t) tradition that a candle is placed outside of the tabernacle indicating that the Eucharist is present. Your just making a fool out of yourself defending such silly positions. Would you please look wax candles up in the Baltimore Catechism. Here is a link for you.
"I am fully aware that there are married priests and women priests as well. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember why they allowed married priests and women priests. That proves the point of the doctrine of celibacy exactly. The very thing you wrote goes against what the doctrine of celibacy advocates. "
It's not doctrine. It's practice or discipline.
You just don't get the difference do you. Practice can change as in the Mass going from latin to english. It is not a part of the deposit of the faith to have an all celibate priesthood, though it is a part of it to have celibate priests. You of course won't understand that either.
"So are you saying that the RCC is now gong against its own claims of truth."
You ignore the fact that the Eastern Rite Churches in commuion with Rom have always allowed married priests. So that is not what I am saying at all.
" If the Pope has always been infallible, did his infallibility change so that he could accept a modern doctrine and throw away the old. Or are these conditonal doctrines? "
You just don't get it. Not everything is doctrine. By the way there are very few infallible statements by Popes. Most are by councils. There is discipline and there is doctrine.
"When I was in catechism it was presented as absolute and not conditional. So what is it now?"
What Catechism. Baltimore, Hardon, ... Neither do any others. The Balitmore Catechism makes no mention of mandatory priestly celibacy. It is doctrine that celibacy in general is the more desirable state in life. The Popes by this doctrine impose the discipline of priestly celibacy on the Latin Rite Churches. You keep ignoring the fact that the Byzantine Rites have always had a married priesthood. Thus your position is invalid. You are simply proving that you did not understand Catholicism ever.
"I can remember in 1960 we were given an English Bible and was told that we were permitted to read it now. So did the ban on the Bible go until 1960?"
More nonsense. Would you like me to look up quotes from various Popes and councils encouraging the reading of the Bible by the laity. There was even indulgences long before 1960 for reading scripture at least 15 minutes a day. I have seen Jerusalem Bibles prior to 1940 with this indulgence inside the front cover. Pope Leo XIII granted such an indulgence long before 1960. I believe it was in the mid 1800's.
"I also read about the issue of the Bible not being permited to be read during the late 1800's as well. So if the ban was lifted it was still in force practically at that time. "
Well now Pope Leo's indulgence proves you wrong.
Here is an article that makes nonsense out of all you say in this regard.
http://www.present-truth.org/Library/Magnificat%20TOC.htm
You wrote, "Candles and the sign of the cross are not doctrine."
"The definition of doctrine is teaching. "
That is the definition you choose to use. The Church says that doctrine is truths about Christ passed on through oral tradition and scripture. Can the Church not define it's own practices and disciplines?
The rest of your post is generally nonsense.
"It sounds to me that you don't agree with celibacy. I know of many Catholics that don't agree with the RCC. They want to see change."
Actually I do. Sorry.
"Why doesn't the RCC admit to some of its wrongs and press ahead. It would be better off."
You would do well to cut your losses also after that last post of yours in which you proved yourself to have no legitimate knowledge of the Catholic Church.
" Let’s take the doctrine of indulgences. I am wondering how anyone can think that money can raise a person from purgatory and on into heaven. Is that kind of like saying the rich are truly richer because they can release a soul from purgatory and into heaven. "
More ridcule of something you have never had any clue about. Why bother with an answer.
"How would you refute the doctrine of indulgences."
Why would I. It is still in full force. They have just removed money as a part of them. Generally they are prayers and works of charity(also called love, something you apparently don't know much about).
" Luther made a big enough issue of it that it started the reformation. Apparently enough people believed what he stood for. There were those who protected him from harm as well when it came to his defense before the RCC. "
So my question is who protected the people German government when Luther told them to slaughter the peasants to the tune of 100,000.
Blessings
