Posted on 07/09/2003 9:05:32 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
Documentary was shown on various PBS stations this week... (you know PBS--will be on again, surely--got to get something out of those tax dollars spent). It's worth taping...
Very good portrayal in my opinion...but downplayed his theology, mainly highlighting the social consequences of what Luther discovered in the Bible. Understandable when telling about such an important historic figure in just 2 hours.
Personally, I think, but for Luther's courage, there would have been no eventual United States of America...and we'd live in a very different world...
Here's the speil from PBS's site:
Martin Luther (#101)
"Driven to Defiance/The Reluctant Revolutionary"
Driven to Defiance - Martin Luther is born into a world dominated by the Catholic Church. For the keenly spiritual Luther, the Church's promise of salvation is irresistible. Caught in a thunderstorm and terrified by the possibility of imminent death, he vows to become a monk. But after entering the monastery, Luther becomes increasingly doubtful that the Church can actually offer him salvation. His views crystallize further when he travels to Rome and finds the capital of Catholicism swamped in corruption. Wracked by despair, Luther finds release in the pages of the Bible, discovering that it is not the Church, but his own individual faith that will guarantee his salvation. With this revelation he turns on the Church. In his famous 95 Theses he attacks its practice of selling Indulgences, putting himself on an irreversible path to conflict with the most powerful institution of the day. The Reluctant Revolutionary - The Catholic Church uses all of its might to try and silence Luther, including accusations of heresy and excommunication. Protected by his local ruler, Frederick the Wise, Luther continues to write radical critiques of the Church. In the process, he develops a new system of faith that places the freedom of the individual believer above the rituals of the Church. Aided by the newly invented printing press, his ideas spread rapidly. He is called before the German Imperial Parliament in the city of Worms and told he must recant. Risking torture and execution, Luther refuses, proclaiming his inalienable right to believe what he wishes. His stand becomes a legend that inspires revolution across Europe, overturning the thousand-year-old hegemony of the Church. But as the reformation expands into a movement for social freedom, Luther finds himself overwhelmed by the pace of change and is left vainly protesting that his followers should be concerning themselves with God.
You are also one smart Baptist. Good post. And scary too. It unfortunately supports my sad contention that RC doctrine is headed towards ostracizing, rejecting, condemning and persecuting ONLY those who insist on salvation by grace (reformation understanding, not tricky RC twisted understanding) alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
Speaking of Calvin, I wonder how many Southern Baptists (whom I respect in many ways) know "once saved always saved" is Calvinist doctrine?
You would agree Calvin would not support the idea of a "decision for Christ", would you not?
Thank you for your excellent post.
Most Holy Father, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, I offer myself with all that I am and have . . . I will acknowledge thy voice as the voice of Christ.
(Letter to Pope Leo X, May 30, 1518)
The true Antichrist, according to Paul, reigns in the Roman Court: I think I am able to prove that he [the Pope] is now worse than the Turks.
(Letter to Wenceslaus Link, December 11, 1518)
I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted . . . It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better.
(Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519)
German monk who couldn't control his libido along with his hatred of the Jews, "The Jews and their Lies" as well as Catholics, about who he begrudingly admitted:
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists[sic] - that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." Commentary on St. John, ch. 16.,
wouldn't condemn polygamy:
I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture.
(De Wette, vol. 2, 459)
and penned the following gems:
"... one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband fans into the sin of unchastity ten times over. Here it is time for the husband to say 'if you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not."
"If women grow weary or even die while bearing children, that does no harm. Let them bear children to death, that's what they're there for."
"Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips, and accordingly they possess intelligence. Women have narrow shoulders and broad hips. Women ought to stay at home; the way they were created indicates this, for they have broad hips and a wide fundament to sit upon."
As for pushing for the Bible to be available for all to read you conveniently fail to mention the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, who, by the end of the seventh century had translated large portions of the Bible into the vernacular. Unlike Luther, Caedmon didn't edit Scripture to his liking. Nor do you mention the translations of the Venerable Bede; Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; Guthlac, of Peterborough; Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; King Alfred the Great; Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury; the Book of Durham; Rushworth Gloss; the paraphrase of Orm; Salus Anime; William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, et al. Nor do you mention the words of St. Thomas More, as Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII:
"The whole Bible long before Wycliff's day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read. ... The clergy keep no Bibles from the laity but such translations as be either not yet approved for good, or such as already reproved for naught as Wycliff's was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff's days, they remain lawful and be in some folks' hand. I myself have seen, and can show you, Bibles, fair and old, which have been known and seen by the bishop of the diocese, and kept in laymen's hands and women's too, such as he knew for good and Catholic folk, that used them with soberness and devotion."
(Dialogues III)
Nor do you mention that the Bible was translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian prior to the invention of the printing press. Nor do you mention that Gutenberg, a Catholic, used his invention, the printing press, to print the Bible, the original 73 book canon which the Catholic Church closed in 405 AD, in Latin, as his first publication.
Yes, indeed, Luther is certainly someone worthy of your admiration.
I hear this rot all the time by people who are ignorant of history and hence believe the sea of anti Catholic garbage that floats around out there like the stench of a New Jersey land fill. But as soon as I ask anyone to point out a specific example of bloodshed that was perpetrated unjustly by the Catholic Church they run for the hills or pull out some time-worn, revisionist rhetorical b.s. Were there individual Catholics who killed unfairly, acting outside of Church authority or acting against the teachings of the Catholic Church? Yes. Just like anyone else,the men and women of the Catholic Church are not perfect, and are all sinners quite capable of killing unjustly when they fail to follow Church teachings. But the CHURCH, the perfect Bride of Christ, is stainless and spotless in her teachings and doctrines. The Bible in fact calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of the truth". (1 Timothy 3:15).
A brief expose of a malicious fallacy and lie hurled agaisnt the Bride of Christ over the centuries in an attempt to sully her name and the Name of her Lord and Founder, Jesus Christ.
(1). THE CRUSADES:
Protestant and Masonic "historians", endeavoring to discredit the Catholic Church, have been claiming for centuries that the Catholic Church wantonly attacked Islam in the middle ages, slaughtering them and forcing conversions on them. But here are the real facts. ~~~ By the time of the first Crusade, around 1098 A.D., the Mohammedans had already attacked and conquered 65% of all Christian lands, including most of Spain, the middle east, (which was previously nearly all Christian), North Africa, much of Byzantium,(the Eastern Roman Empire), and much of the Christian Balkans. At one earlier point the Mohammedans drove all the way into central France, but were finally expelled by Charles Martel. ~~~ In 1071 A.D. the Muslim hordes assembled a huge army at Manzikeret, and prepared to attack Greece, (the seat of Byzantine Christianity). The Greeks sent their best trained men, roughly 70,000 of them, out to meet the Islamic warriors. It was a gamble, because if they were defeated there would be no viable army left to stop the onslaught of Islam. A tactical mistake occurred and the Greek army was wiped out, nearly to the man. Now, this left open not only the rest of Byzantium, but also a gateway into Western Europe. With the eastern Christian army defeated, who would stop Islam from pouring into Western Europe? Also during this time, Jerusalem was taken by Islam and Christians were expelled, killed, tortured, enslaved. Christians in those times were devout, and they viewed the Holy Land with sacred awe. Muslims were desecrating all the holy places and churches, even the burial place of Jesus Christ was not spared. The Western Europeans had to act - there was no other choice but go on the offensive.
During the Crusades, which mostly amounted to the Islamic slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Christian soldiers, the Christians never forced the Mohammedans to convert as is widely held today by those who like to reinvent history to their liking. In fact, the Christian Crusaders never even held enough land during the Crusades to control any large populations of Moslems. They took some cities, but then built castles to protect themselves and provide rear guard and supply assistance to the soldiers riding towards Jerusalem. The notion that the Crusaders invaded and conquered large swaths of land and forced conversions is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, during the first Crusade, it is estimated that the Crusaders left Western Europe with roughly 500,000 men. By the time they got to Jerusalem and conquered it, they had only 15,000 men left, (Hillaire Belloc, "The Crusades"). The Crusaders got slaughtered along the way, they lost many men to starvation and disease, and many others simply went back home, (not a crime in those days to desert). After the successful first Crusade to take Jerusalem, all the others ended in utter slaughter and defeat for the Christians.
I know, now you're going to tell me about the Spanish Inquistion. But this is just another anti Cahtolic red herring. Modern scholars agree that only several thousand people were put to death during several hundred years of the Spanish Inquisition, and not the "tens of thousands" that the anti Catholic pseudo historians have charged over the years. And it was the SPANISH Inquisition, not the "Catholic" Inquistion. The King and Queen of Spain were Catholics, but they were soveriegn rulers of their nation. The Popes had long since lost their power to control Kings. Initially, the King of Spain sent a letter to the Pope and received his sanction to go ahead with the Inquistion. But history clearly records future leters from the Popes condemning the practices of the Inquisition, and trying vainly to stop them. Even CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND PRIESTS were put on trail, and the Pope's intervention for them proved fruitless.
It must be remembered also, that Spain has been under the brutal lash of Islamic control for 600 years. When Spain finally threw off the yoke of Islamic oppression and control, they found that many Muslims had infiltrated into the Church and secular society, as false converts to Christianity. Also, many Jews had fought alongside the Muslims in North Africa, helping them to kill Spaniards on the battlefields. (This is well documented history.) Keep in mind that many acts of sedition, spying and even murder of priests had taken place in Spain by these false "converts", therefore, the King of Spain decided to find out exactly who had infiltrated his government and threatened his society. After being subjected for 600 years Spain was in no mood to find their country getting overthrown again by infiltrators. Important facts like these are lost in the raging history of anti Catholicism.
But how bad was the Inquistion? I can tell you this: the Catholic Church introduced a brand new concept to the Spanish Inquistion, they mandated that all those accused must have a lawyer, were entitled to witnesses, and must be judged by their peers. Furhtermore, it was ordered that anyone proved to have lied just to get another person indicted falsely would have to serve a long prison sentence. (This alleviated many a false charge). Also, while torture was a generally accepted practice by every civilized nation on earth at the time, the Church introduced a law that would minimize all tortures to gain confessions to a twenty minute time span, and ordered that all tortures that could either kill or permanently maim must be outlawed. This was a incredible act of mercy considering the times. In point of fact, the Inquisition became so progressive, civilized and well ordered for the times, that history records that idicted criminals begged the King to be tried as heretics, just so they could obtain the benefits of being tried by the Inquisition.
I hope these few little facts will help to dispel some of the anti Catholic bigotry out there, and enlighten some Catholics to the truth about the history of our Church. The Catholic Church is a spotless Divinely Instituted Church, but because it is made up soley of human beings there will always be sin and evil amongst its members. This is unavoidable. But people should keep in mind that when they attack the Church as an institution, (and not the individual sinners), they are attacking Jesus Christ Himself, for he founded this Church on Saint Peter some 2,000 years ago, (Mathew 16:19). It should also be remembered that even the Apostles, Jesus' first "priests", were sinners. Peter denied Our Lord three times, Thomas doubted Jesus right to his face, Judas betrayed Jesus. Other Apostles argued about who were the greatest among them. This in no way indicts Christ's spotless Holy Bride, the Church.
No, ... just tired of seeing someone do a revisionist hatchet job on Luther. If it weren't for him, even you'd lack a Bible to read as well as knowing (if you care to be saved) that it is faith that will save you not works or praying to dead people. It is ONLY the living God that is to be worshipped. And of course money making schemes like Indulgences would be standard practice. Don't fret other indulgences have taken it's place such as the ongoing molestation problems with priests ... now you know where your tithes are going ... etc..
As for your hateful, false, propaganda on Luther ... you are certainly free to believe whatever you choose. Facts or truth don't hinder what they believe. For example, some still believe Bill Clinton was a God fearing man! Or that Hillary is the ultimate selfless victim of a right wing conspiracy.
Unfortunately unrevisionist history and evidence says differently - just as the same is true for Martin Luther. Sad but true, the Catholic church selectively shows it's unChrist like vitriol to those who chose to believe what God says over the "church". I'm fortunate that I don't have that hatred for you as I see that your church has taught you to display towards me and people like Luther.
Any "church" is bound to be problematic when it depends on mere fallible mortals, spiritually or otherwise, that deviate from the Bible. That statement extends to ANY one claiming to be a "Christian".
Take care but for your own sake, don't revel in demolishing the reputation of others who have lead countless people to be saved. I'm sure Luther didn't walk on water either. No mere mortal does. However he certainly isn't the monster that you have painted. Shame on you.
You've been listening to your protestant pastor too much. Most modern Protestant scholars no longer agree with the earlier heretics and freemasons who made this hideous claim against Christ's Church. At least the Catholic Church is wise and humble enough to acknowledge that the Book of Revelation, written in code, is a mystery that can't be clearly interpreted in its entirety. Funny, how can find the audacity to call the church Jesus Christ founded and promised to "be with forever>" (Mathew 28:20) a "whore".
Sigh, I guess it's my day to have to straighten out all this Protestant nonsense before I head for Church, (the real one).
(1). The Bible itself considers oral tradition to be equal to the written epistle, hear the words of Saint Paul: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by epistle. (2 Thess. 2:15).
(2). The Pope does not consider his words to be equal to Scripture. The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible was the end of revelation. When the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" his words must be in line with Scripture and tradition, and cannot deviate from the teachings of the previous 2,000 years of Christianity. The doctrine of "infallibility" is a very narrow one, used only rarely, that is confined to pronouncements that directly concern salvation. The Church, however, has always considered the pronouncements of its councils to be the infallible truth. That is the very reason why the Church has always held Councils through the ages, to officially define doctrines that come into question. The first Council was the Council of Jerusalem, seen in Acts 15. This council of the Apostles and "elders" was held because the question for the need of circumcism arose and needed to be defined. Even Paul and Barnabus traveled to Jerusalem to sit at Council with Peter and the Apostles on this matter. After much debate, Peter, the head of the Apostles, "rose up and spoke" (and settled the matter), "and all the assembly kept silent..." - (Acts 15:6 - 12).
None of what you list below adds or removes a single world from the Bible. Nor are all of them even doctrines. Many are practices and traditions are found in the Old and New Testaments, TRADITION. As Saint John's gospel tells us, the Bible does not contain all of what Jesus said and did. (John 21:25) and (John 20:30). But I will anwser them anyway.
"1. Prayers for the dead -- 300 AD"
Praying for the dead is not "unbiblical". In fact, Luther removed the two canonical Books of Maccabees from the Bible and called them the "Apocrapha" because in 2 Maccabbees the Jews did indeed pray for the dead, (see 2 Maccabees 12:44 -45). Even though you Protestants unfortunately removed this book from the canon of Scripture, you still keep it in the middle of the KJV Bible because it is accurate Jewish history. And since it is accurate Jewish history, we know that the devout Jews of the Old Covenant prayed for the dead; - inspired book or not inspired book, the account of praying for the dead is considered historical fact.
Furthermore, we see Saint Paul referring to his friend Onesiphorus in the past tense, and asking God to bless his household, and asking God "to grant him the mercy of the Lord in that day", (Judgement). He was clearly praying for the deceased Onesiphorus. 2 Timothy 1: 16 - 18).
"2. Making the sign of the cross -- 300 AD"
Just another Protestant fallacy. Hear what Tertullian, an early Church Father, wrote in 197 A.D. about Christians signing themselves on the forehead with the sign of the Cross: ""In all our travels and movements in all our coming in and going out, in putting of our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupieth us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross". (De cor. Mil., iii). And it's quite obvious from this writing that even in 197 A.D. this was not a new practice. Revelation 7:3 also speaks of a Christian seal on the forehead: "saying, Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God upon their foreheads."
"3. Veneration of angels & dead saints -- 375 A.D."
The Saints are dead? Then please explain what Moses and Elias were doing on the Mount with Jesus, showing themselves to Peter, Andrew, and John. (Mathew 17:2). And who are the "cloud of witnesses" in Hewbrews 12:1 that "surround" the Christian? And how is it that the "rich man" in Hades saw the long deceased Abraham in Paradise, and asked him for help? (Luke 16: 19 - 30).
I'll answer the rest of your time worn rhetorical Protestant nonsense later. Tis time to get myself to the true Christian Church.
Matt.15:2 Paul was an apostle, and this was the apostolic era during which Scripture was being written, and attending signs, such as the raising of the dead, were given to the apostles. Scripture has been completed. There are no more apostles, the current Polish Pretender with the mitre that blasphemously claims the title "Pontifex Maximus" included [Pontifex Maximus means "Highest Priest" Christ is the only Highest Priest we have ore need. "1Tim.2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"
The "traditions" Paul referred to do not mean what the RCC erroneously teaches as tradition. Paul referred to the doctrines He taught under inspiration by the Spirit in the Scripture written by Him, and the Scripture available from other Apostles and the Old Testament Scripture. If by "tradition" one means doctrine and practice that conforms to the Scripture on which that tradition is founded then that is commended in Scripture, as in the verse cited by Paul. But when "tradition" means UNSCRIPTURAL doctrines and practices which have gradually become accepted and popular, the Bible in general and Jesus in particular constantly condemned this kind of tradition [which is the kind of meaning the Catholic church attaches to the word "tradition."]
Matt.15: 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
Col.2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. {rudiments: or, elements} {make a prey: or, seduce you, or, lead you astray}
Tell me anything Paul taught that contradicts Scripture. Then examine your church [the only real one as you so arrogantly put it]. The history of the RCC from its first attempts to gain ascendancy over all of the other churches in the 4th century, even going so far as to forge phony documents supposedly from Constantine that claimed preeminence for the Roman church.
Sorry, but the Bible does not call Peter the head of the apostles. Paul spoke with as much authority, and wrote much more of the New Testament than Peter. We at least know that Paul went to Rome, but there is no concrete evidence Peter ever did. Which makes sense, since Paul was to be the Apostle to the Gentiles and Peter the Apostle to the Jews.
Oh but wait, the Catholic church thinks that Peter is the rock on which the church is based, even though two different words are used for that foundation rock [huge stratum of rock] and Peter [small rock]. Peter never claimed to be the rock on which the church was built any more than any other Apostle. Let's let Peter identify the rock:
1 Pet.2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
The Greek language is very precise, and it is the Greek language through which the Spirit moved on the Apostles to record Scripture.
1Cor.10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
When the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" his words must be in line with Scripture When I was speaking of the "Pope's words" I was speaking of his "ex cathedra" statements. Catholics say his words have to agree with Scripture. But in practice they do not. And in line with 2000 years of tradition? Claiming that Mary had an "immaculate conception" was not officially accepted until 1854. It took until 1950 to claim that Mary ascended bodily into heaven. Neither have any basis in Scripture at all. These are just two of the examples I listed previously of the Catholic church doing exactly what Jesus condemned, teaching as doctrines the inventions of men. Giving glory to Mary that is only due Christ.
Pius XII’s encyclical, Mediator Dei: Christ “has offered and continues to offer Himself as a victim for our sins.” Hebrews 9:25 says, “nor yet that he should offer himself often.” Hebrews 10:14, “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.”
Catholicism does not have a high view of Scripture: From the New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Bible as a literary work had traditions that included myth” (Vol. 10, p. 184); “Some of the miracles recorded in Holy Scripture may be fictional and include imaginative literary exaggerations. The episode of Noah and the Ark is imaginative literary creation” (Vol. 9, p. 887); “The Gospels are not biographies of Jesus and still less scientific history” (Vol. 12, p. 403).
The RCC can't even unequivocally say that Christ is the only way of salvation. From Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), #846: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try by their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.” [SOME OF THESE INDICTMENTS I LIST AGAINST THE RCC APPLY TO MANY PROTESTANT CHURCHES AS WELL]
We can think those who stood up to Rome's tyranny that we even have a Bible in our own common language to freely discuss here on Free Republic.
Bible translator and reformer, Tyndale was ordained as a priest in 1521, having studied Greek diligently at Oxford and Cambridge universities Following his studies he joined Sir John Walsh's household, with duties not easy to define. Some accounts describe him as a tutor to Sir John's children; some make him chaplain to the household; while another suggests he acted as secretary to Sir John.
One day Tyndale was engaged in a discussion with a learned man who told him it was better to be without God's law than that of the Pope. To this Tyndale retorted that he defied the Pope and all his laws, adding that if God were to spare his life, before many years passed he would cause a boy who drove the plough to know more of the Scriptures than this learned man. Tyndale had found his vocation: translation of the Bible into English.
Tyndale conferred with Luther in Germany and stayed on the continent translating the Bible from Greek into English. The printing of the translation was begun at Cologne in 1525, but was stopped by an injunction obtained by Johann Dobeneck, a vain and conceited man who hated the Reformation and opposed it in every possible way. Tyndale fled to Worms, where the book was printed. Copies were smuggled into England, where Archbishop Warham and Bishop Tonstall ordered them seized and burned.
Eventually Tyndale was betrayed by a friend and arrested in Brussels, Belgium. Despite the efforts of Thomas Cromwell and others to save him, he was tried for treason and heresy against the Church. He was condemned, degraded from holy orders, strangled, and his body burned. His last words were a prayer, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes."
Tyndale's influence upon English literature was great, chiefly through the use made of his renderings in the King James Version of the Bible (1611). It is estimated that 60 percent of this translation is derived from that of Tyndale.
NOTE: I RESPECT THE STANDS THAT THIS CURRENT POPE AND MOTHER THERESA TOOK FOR MORALITY AND AGAINST ABORTION. AND I APPRECIATE THE MANY PATRIOTIC CATHOLICS WHO VOTE THE CONSERVATIVE LINE ON THE MANY "VALUES" ISSUES TODAY. CATHOLICS WERE MORE VIGILANT IN OPPOSING ABORTION FROM THE BEGINNING THAN PROTESTANTS. BUT I DISAGREE THEOLOGICALLY WITH MANY RCC DOCTRINES BECAUSE I CANNOT FIND SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THEM. I BEAR NO PERSONAL ILL WILL AGAINST ANY CATHOLIC. I JUST FEEL COMPELLED TO TELL PEOPLE THAT CHRIST IS THE ONE WHO SAVES, NOT A DENOMINATION, AND IF SCRIPTURE DOES NOT SUPPORT A DOCTRINE, THEN IT IS NOT A PART OF TRUE CHRISTIANITY. I AM BLESSED TO HAVE MANY FRIENDS IN MY CHURCH WHO WERE CATHOLICS JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, BUT HAD NEVER HAD A PERSONAL SALVATION EXPERIENCE WITH CHRIST.
More self-interpreting nonsense. Note that when Judas hung himself the Apostles had to appoint and ordain a replacement Apostle for him, Matthias. (Acts 1: 21-26). What does the end of Scriptural revelation have to do with the end of preists, (presbyters), Bishops and Apostles? On the contrary, a perpetual Apostolic ministry and leadership was essential to the handing on of Divine Revelation. "Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Mana-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. (Acts 13: 1-3) So the Bible proves you are wrong yet again. Jesus commanded the Apostles: "go out into all nations and teach them all things whatsoever I have taught you", (Mathew 28:20).
Are you supposing that Jesus charged the Twelve with this monumental and perpetual task without allowing them the power to ordain other Aposltes? The Apostles, in order to fulfill Christ's command, had to lay hands on other disciples to ordain them as replacements and proxies :
Jesus gave the power to heal and forgive sins to the Apostles; (Luke 9:1, and Luke 22: 17-20), and the Apostles conferred these same God-given powers onto others in (I Timothy 4: 13 -14): "Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you".
Throughout Acts, Hebrews and Timothy, we see this Apostolic heirarchy and ordination of others in action: "Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Hebrews 13:17
Get your Latin and your scholarship straight for once so we can have a serious debate. "Pontifex Maximus" means, literally, "Supreme Pontiff", or in Catholic meaning, "bishop of bishops". "Pontiff" in eccliastical Latin translates only to "Bishop", and does not mean 'priest' in any way, shape, form or manner. As usual, the anti Catholics attack with lies, falsehoods, and utter disregard for facts.
Saint Paul's words are crystal clear in (2 Thess. 2:15): "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the tradition which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.". In fact, Paul then commands true Christians to keep away from people like you, who refuse to understand oral traditions to be as authoratative as the written Scripture: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us."
Your Bible scholarship and attention to detail is terrible. Note that it was the Pharisees who are accusing the Apostles of not following the traditions of the Jews. Jesus then defends the Apostles, and assails the traditions of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were living according to the early Talmud, (then called the 'Mishna'). This was the man-made, early Rabinnical commentary on the Bible, and not the Bible itself. The Jews of Christ's day were indeed living according to "traditions of men", the Pharisees. For they stopped living according to the the Divinely inspired Torah and followed the teachings of the man-made Mishna, (Pharisaic commentaries on the Bible). Saint Paul, the son of a Pharisee, beautifully verifies this in (Galatians 1 13-14) when he says: "For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the tradition of my fathers.
"You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (2 Corinthians 3: 2-3)
As you hopefully have learned by now, if you can pay attention to detail, the "tradition of men" that Paul spoke of were the traditions of the Pharisees, the traditions he himself once followed, (Galatians `1: 13-13). The traditions that Paul himself now taught, (2 Thess. 2:15), were the legitimate traditions of God's Church, not "traditions of man". Does Paul condemn himself in 2 Thess. 2:15 when he commands Christians to follow both his epistles and oral traditions? Does Paul contradict himself in 2 Thess. 3:6 when he commands us to walk away from any brother not living in the traditions?
Again, your understanding of the Bible is shoddy.
No? The Bible almost always refers to the Apostles as "Peter and the eleven". How about these verses?
(1). "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke to them.." (Acts 2:14)
(2). "and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (I Cor 5:15).
(3). "But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before into Galillee", (Mark 16:7).
(4). "Now when they had heard these things they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the Apostles, what shall we do..." (Acts 2:37).
(5). Jesus gives the 'Keys to the Kingdom' only to Peter. (Mathew 16:18).
(6). Peter is the only Apostle allowed to walk on water. (Mathew 14:28).
(7). Only Peter is given the vision from God that all men can be saved. (Acts 10: 11- 16).
(8). Peter settles the dispute at the Council of Jersualem, and 'silenced the multitude'. (Acts 15: 7 -12).
(9). only Peter is assured by Jesus Christ Himself that his faith will never fail. (Luke 22:31-32).
(10). John outruns Peter to the Tomb, but suddenly stops and allows Peter to catch up, allowing him to be the first to go inside the Tomb of Jesus. (John 20:3-6).
(11). Jesus commands Peter, "feed my lambs, feed my lambs, feed my sheep". (John 21: 15-17).
Where have you been? No protestant or fundamentalist scholars make this claim anymore. The evidence that Peter died in Rome is so overwhelming that it's silly to even make the claim he never went to Rome.
The Christian historian Eusebius wrote in the 3rd century that Peter was martyred with Paul in Rome.
Saint Irenaeus, (2nd century bishop of Lyons, and disciple of Polycarp who was a friend of John the Evangelist), wrote that the Church at Rome was founded by Peter and Paul.
Origin also wrote that Peter died in Rome.
Saint Clement, (the Clement Paul mentions in the Bible), wrote that Peter died in Rome.
St. Ignatius, early 2nd century Bishop wrote that Peter died in Rome with Paul.
Saint Cyprian of Carthage, who died a martyr in 258 A.D., wrote: "On Peter the Lord builds His Chruch, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep....and He assigns like power to all the Apostles-Yet He founded a single chair---a primacy was given to Peter.." (Jurgens, 555-556).
I won't answer the rest of your silly posts because they are just the same old worn out allegations that have been around since Luther, Calvin, Zwingle and the other self-appointed popes and false authorities - - - and they are just too easy to refute. Your knowledge of Scripture and Church history is shallow, and all you have to talk about are the age old things that Protestant pastors and anti Catholic web sites spew day and night. But you just got your lunch eaten in this debate, if you chose to read it, that is. Maybe now you'll ask your pastor or fundamentalist instructor a few questions.
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.