Posted on 05/18/2015 9:04:22 AM PDT by Salvation
Featured Term selected at random:
PARTIAL INDULGENCE
An indulgence that removes part of the temporal punishment due to forgiven sin. All particularities in terms of days, months, or years are ow removed from partial indulgences. The new norm is based on the dispositions of the person gaining the indulgence and the character of the indulgenced work that person performs.
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
It is quoted at the site, **http://biblelight.net/burn-heretics.htm**, (a blatantly anti-Catholic website, with fancy red flashing "number of the beast" gifs next to the Catholic links) standing alone, thus taken out of its original context.
The article in and of itself, takes into consideration burning as a method of execution whereby the person was introduced to earthly flames as a precursor to the fires of hell, thus frightening them into recanting. Pope Leo X apparently considered this method more efficacious to the soul than the method employed by the hanging (not to the point of death), drawing and quartering, then beheading, also common in that era. The latter procedure in its entirety, was practiced by Henry Tudor, in its entirety, after torture on the rack. The person's head was them placed on public display to inspire terror amongst potential traitors. The severed body parts were scattered about, as were the entrails.
The document you mentioned stated a list of the doctrine Luther proclaimed at the time, one of which did in one sentence, involve the burning of heretics.
Here is a quote from Pope Leo X, more reflective of the bull in toto:
Exsurge Domine Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520
Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.
The first, in the medieval mind, was more humane and have a chance for repentance: the second to terrorize. The author does not state that what was done is right, but attempts to review the facts of a situation through the eyes of the medieval world.
The author goes on to say that while there was a zero tolerance in medieval society, our present day society has turned the opposite way and tolerates evil such as abortion. At no time does he advocate murder, not even today's capital punishment. Rather, he is comparing one method to another; one era to another.
As for Luther:
From Christianity Today dot com
"Measures of “Sharp Mercy”
"By 1543, Luther was ready lo go one step further. He had become utterly frustrated by the Jews’ refusal to convert to Christianity: “A Jewish heart is as hard as a stick, a stone, as iron, as a devil.”
Luther did not, however, hold Jews responsible for the death of Christ. As he wrote in a hymn, “We dare not blame … the band of Jews; ours is the shame.” And he felt that at least a few Jews might be won for Christ.
Yet rabbinic teaching was madness and blindness that blasphemed Christ, Mary, and the Holy Trinity. Luther could not “have any fellowship or patience with obstinate [Jewish] blasphemers and those who defame this dear Savior.” Blasphemy was a civil crime. To allow it to continue, Luther feared, meant Christians would share in the guilt for it.
Thus, Luther now proposed seven measures of “sharp mercy” that German princes could take against Jews: (1) burn their schools and synagogues; (does he specify that the occupants are too be removed during the burning? No.) (2) transfer Jews to community settlements; (3) confiscate all Jewish literature, which was blasphemous; (4) prohibit rabbis to teach, on pain of death; (5) deny Jews safe-conduct, so as to prevent the spread of Judaism; (6) appropriate their wealth and use it to support converts and to prevent the lewd practice of usury; (7) assign Jews to manual labor as a form of penance." (Excerpt)
Interesting, that Luther had such influence over the German princes: the Popes were often criticized for such political manipulation.
As to your last line, my friend, perhaps it ought to read: An anti Catholic website takes an article out of context, and its contents are misconstrued and erroneously imputed to modern day Catholic teaching.
make up what is lacking in the suffering of Jesus? Seriously??
I don’t know what that doctrine is, but is it not Christian. Christ died once, for all, and cried it is finished. I did not hear it is mostly finished, or it is partially finished, or I made a good start....... Christ is all in all, His sacrifices was sufficient, and it is over. The only question is do you believe or not.
Read the entire Papal Bull. While the Holy Father disagreed with Luther's objections to the burning of heretics, he simply mentioned it as part of what Luther promulgated. It was part of a long list of Luther's teachings to which he objected.
**do you think burning heretics is something trivial?**
Of course not! I do, however live in a different century, not the 1500's. The article compared opinions from one era to another, and one method of execution being considered more humane at that time than others.
**Do I agree with Luther?**
Neither in his doctrine; his anti-Semitism, nor his hypocrisy. Do you agree with the 5 points? I sincerely hope not.
Colossians, 1:24
(2:Macc.12:46): "It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."
Those in Heaven have no need for prayer; those in hell are beyond hope. Thus there must be a place for the dead where sins are expiated. Catholics maintained the Apocrypha, while the Reformers discarded it. The baby got thrown out with the bathwater, just so Purgatory could be eliminated.
“(2:Macc.12:46): “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.”
“Those in Heaven have no need for prayer; those in hell are beyond hope.”
We agree here, based on Scripture.
“Thus there must be a place for the dead where sins are expiated.”
This could only be true if Christ’s death did not cover all sins. If it did not, you do not have a Savior.
This is in opposition to the teaching of the rest of Scripture, which states that Christ is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world and teaches from cover to cover that righteousness only ever comes through Him.
“Catholics maintained the Apocrypha, while the Reformers discarded it. The baby got thrown out with the bathwater, just so Purgatory could be eliminated.”
I believe you have that backwards historically. The Apocrypha, which was questioned throughout the ages was rejected during the Reformation because it conflicted with the teaching of accepted Scripture and contained errors. Consequently, there was nothing in Scripture that teaches any power to deal with sins other than Christ alone and purgatory was seen as a false doctrine.
Do you have no verse outside the Apocrypha that would teach so important an idea, if true (and it is not)?
.................
Hebrews 9:6 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Amen. IT IS FINISHED!
If we don't agree on that, then we cannot agree on Purgatory. That is not part of your Sacred Scripture. It is a part of mine and that of the Catholic Church.
The Reformers came along, and went sola scriptura, and threw out the tradition, interpretation, and part of the Scripture of the Roman Catholic Church. Why then, did they not band together, and become one church? Does one Protestant church conform to the interpretations of the others? Are they united amongst themselves, other than in disagreement with Catholicism? Which, then, carries the correct interpretation of Scripture, among those reformed churches? How do you reconcile the differences in their ideas and interpretations?
I posted it, but it was not addressed. What did St. Paul mean, in your estimation?
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:
Colossians, 1:24
“I figured that was the verse you kept pressing for. If we don’t agree on that, then we cannot agree on Purgatory. That is not part of your Sacred Scripture. It is a part of mine and that of the Catholic Church.”
I wondered if there was any verse outside the Apocrypha that you believe teaches this doctrine. I know of none. I take it from that statement that you know of none.
“The Reformers came along, and went sola scriptura, and threw out the tradition, interpretation, and part of the Scripture of the Roman Catholic Church. “
Actually, tradition is very important to Biblical Christianity. It doesn’t outrank the authority of God-Inspired Scripture.
“Why then, did they not band together, and become one church?”
All Christian local churches are united around the core truths.
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity
Augustine of Hippo
“Does one Protestant church conform to the interpretations of the others?”
Only on essentials.
“Are they united amongst themselves, other than in disagreement with Catholicism?”
Sure, on essentials.
“Which, then, carries the correct interpretation of Scripture, among those reformed churches? How do you reconcile the differences in their ideas and interpretations?”
Vast portions of Scripture can be interpreted in more than one way. Fortunately, these are not the essentials of salvation, Christian maturity nor the nature and Character of God.
Typically, if a church wanders from the Scriptures, they pervert truth and remaining churches no longer associate with them. They tend to die eventually, as you would expect.
That's interesting to read. Honestly, the fact that the Church honors sacred tradition has very often been criticized in forum. Also, the Church Fathers have been used against us as a contradiction.
Tell me, what do you think of Paul's verse from Colossians? What are the essentials you speak of? Thanks!
“Actually, tradition is very important to Biblical Christianity.”
“That’s interesting to read. Honestly, the fact that the Church honors sacred tradition has very often been criticized in forum. Also, the Church Fathers have been used against us as a contradiction.”
Protestants also have tradition and it is cherished. It is not, however equal to or higher than what God has said and inspired. All tradition and doctrine is judged by the highest authority - God’s Word - which is the meaning of Sola Scriptura. If it is not rooted there, it is not a doctrine that is Christian.
Frankly, anyone or group that makes anything other than what God has inspired be equal or higher in authority, deserves to be corrected. Protestant or other denomination.
The Fathers are contradictory. Historically, they are useful, but not authoritative. They have value. The quote I shared above is fantastic and wise.
“Tell me, what do you think of Paul’s verse from Colossians? What are the essentials you speak of? Thanks!”
Different topic about suffering...
I’m too beat after driving so far today to give you anything original. Here is a snippet from Dr. Thomas Constable, one of my former seminary professors and a fantastic teacher of the Bible. Man did he make me work!
Paul’s sufferings 1:24
This verse is “. . . probably the most controversial in the letter.”76
It might have seemed ironical that Paul was in prison, in view of what he had just said about the success of the gospel. Therefore he quickly explained that his afflictions were part of God’s plan, and he rejoiced in them. Paul could rejoice because he knew his imprisonment would benefit his readers through his ministry to them in this letter if in no other way. Furthermore he regarded his sufferings as what any servant of Christ could expect in view of the world’s treatment of his Master.
“. . . the word thlipseon (AV [NASB and NIV], ‘afflictions’) is never used in the New Testament of the atoning sufferings of Christ. We, therefore, must reject any conception of a treasury of merit, such as Roman Catholics allow, composed of Christ’s sufferings plus the sufferings of the saints and dispensed as indulgences.
“If we also dismiss the interpretations which understand Paul to be referring to sufferings demanded by Christ or suffered for His sake (the natural sense of the genative is opposed to this), we are still left with several alternatives.”77
One view is that the phrase “Christ’s afflictions” refers to the quota of sufferings the church must undergo corporately before the end of the age (cf. Matt. 24:6; Heb. 11:40; Rev. 6:11).78 However this idea is foreign to the context that stresses the contribution Paul’s sufferings made to the Colossian’s welfare. Paul’s point was not that his sufferings relieved the Colossians of their share of sufferings for Christ (cf. 1:28–29; 2:1–2).
A second view is that Paul was saying his sufferings were similar to Christ’s. Both he and Christ suffered for believers, Christ on the cross and Paul presently.79 Yet Paul wrote here of Christ’s sufferings. They were His own.
A third view is that the sufferings of Christ to which Paul referred are those sacrificial works the Lord left for believers to perform.80 As Christ suffered during His ministry, so Christians suffer during our ministries. However if this is what Paul meant, why did he speak of them as Christ’s afflictions? This view, as the preceding two views, expresses a Scriptural revelation, but that revelation does not seem to be Paul’s point here.
A fourth view, the one I prefer, regards the afflictions of Christ as Christ’s actual sufferings now, not on the cross but in and through Paul whom He indwelt (cf 2 Cor. 11:23–28).81 When believers suffer, Christ also suffers because He indwells us (cf. Acts 9:4).
“It is no wonder, then, that Paul rejoiced in his sufferings. Seen in the light of his union with Christ, they were transfigured and made an occasion for fellowship with Him, as well as a benefit to the body, the church.”82
Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Col 1:23–24).
We are sharing in Christ’s afflictions because He is in exile now, rejected by both His nation and the nations by and large. As ambassadors for Him, preaching reconciliation to God by the finished work of His son, we too are rejected, mocked, dismissed, etc. It’s during His absence that we must operate by faith, not by sight, and man in his natural state rejects those things that cannot be seen, felt, heard, tasted, or smelled. We are as rejected as He was when He walked here. We are filling up the rejection that Christ continues to have, daily. A JOYFUL affliction.
Interesting explanation not rooted in any Scripture.
No, I mean your explanation gave not Scriptural basis to discuss. There was nothing else to say about it. I do understand exactly what you are writing.
Thanks for the clarification. I just know that every time I give someone the gospel of the grace of God, and that person ridicules, ignores, gets angry, etc., my heart breaks. Not for me. For Christ. And that person. Christ is rejected, once again. And I suffer His rejection. Does this make sense?
“And I suffer His rejection. Does this make sense?”
Yes, though I might phrase it differently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.