[paladinan]

Let me put it this way for you: the medieval church

Stop there, for a moment. Since I'm a stickler for logic and proper use of terms (and since many anti-Catholics use the word "medieval" as a sort of swear word--rather than as a genuine descriptor of a time period, as any rational historian would do): could you please tell me the date (during the medieval period) when this alleged "Papal coup" took place? Rounding to the nearest decade is fine.

sanctified and apologized for a governing system we call feudalism which puts God on top and the King or the Pope (they battled incessantly for the honor) as a divinely ordained and therefore unchallengeable, then the nobility and finally the peasantry.

Forgive me, but: regarding both the terms and the concepts, I see no evidence that you know what you're talking about, on this particular point. First of all: feudalism was a tremendous step UPWARD from its preceding systems (i.e. slavery), and it involved a local lord/noble exchanging protection and stability for fealty from the serfs and peasants. It was hardly the monstrosity you make it out to be. Secondly: I hardly think you'd object to "God on top", right? Thirdly: "king or Pope" is a slippery bit of opinion-laden, content-free editorial, on your part... which served only to express the fact that you have disdain for both.

Under this arrangement there was no communication between man and God except by way of intercession of the church.

Where on earth are you getting this nonsense? "No communication"? You mean to say that the Catholic Church forbade people to pray? That's news to me (and to the rest of the world which follows history instead of polemics). Yes, the Church is necessary... because Christ founded it, and because He established it as the pillar and foundation of the truth (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15). But to say that there was "no communication" between God and men by any indirect means is simply silly.

Until the divine right of kings was shattered there was no hope of an expression of all men being created equal.

So... you think Christ should have represented Himself as a president or prime minister (or some other egalitarian, democratic/republic-based figure), rather than the King of Kings? The presence or absence of a king has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that all men are created equal, in the Image and Likeness of God. Any suggestion to the contrary is simple fantasy and fluff.

Luther's 95 Theses (have you actually read them?) contained some legitimate complaints (against abuses perpetrated by individual clerics) mixed with a jumbled mess of misunderstandings, heresies, and incoherencies. He invented his unbiblical ideas of "sola Scriptura" and "sola fide" out of whole cloth, and used them to anoint himself "his own pope", by which he gave himself permission to do whatever he wished, morally (including endorsement of polygamy [cf. Philip of Hesse], encouraging others to sin [cf. Jerome Weller], and a potty-mouth which would get his writings barred from most public recitations, were they to be rendered in equivalent English). Rarely has a man been more responsible for more moral and religious disaster than was Luther (and Calvin, and the other notable heresiarchs).

Suffice it to say that the Declaration of Independence could easily have been written by a faithful Catholic; the fight against tyranny isn't the sole province of Protestantism (nor did Protestantism always encourage it--cf. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc., who all benefited from the protection of sympathetic lords and princes--Luther owed his life to some of them, in fact).

Hint: when one finds that one needs to rewrite history in order to make a claim, then that claim is probably not a true one.

[Iscool]

Hint: when one finds that one needs to rewrite history in order to make a claim, then that claim is probably not a true one.

I'm glad you brought that up...

He invented his unbiblical ideas of "sola Scriptura" and "sola fide" out of whole cloth, and used them to anoint himself "his own pope"

Well no...The early church fathers taught 'scripture alone'...

Hint: when one finds that one needs to rewrite history in order to make a claim, then that claim is probably not a true one.

Interesting you would bring that up since you are the one trying to change history...And if you are going to post false information about that, there's not much reason to believe any thing else you say...

Here's just a few to start with...

Scripture Alone is final Authority

1 Irenaeus, (130-202), “We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith,” (Adv. H. 3:1).
2 Clement of Alexandria (150?-213?), “They that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves,” (Stromata 7:16:3).
3 Origen (185?-252), “No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures,” (Tract. 26 in Matt.).
4 St. Cyprian of Carthage (200?-258), “Whence comes this tradition? Does it descend from the Lord’s authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For those things are to be done which are there written . . . If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed,” (Cyprian of Carthage, Ep. 74 ad Pompeium).

What say ye to that???

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

He invented his unbiblical ideas of "sola Scriptura" and "sola fide" out of whole cloth, and used them to anoint himself "his own pope"

“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)

“When someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.” (Augustine, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 6-7)