:)
Posted on 12/04/2005 10:44:32 AM PST by markomalley
Since we've had to endure some inaccurate "history" over the past few days, I decided that we needed a little fair and balanced view of the "reformation." Let me know if you'd like to me notified of further installments (four more in total).
I do appreciate the post btw. There isn't anything in this that contradicts my posts except perhaps the downplay of three Popes.
Karl Adam, an excellent choice of a theologian to post. I hope all have read his "Spirit of Catholicism". It is quite profound.
The above history is much appreciated, as it doesn't belittle the beliefs of Purgatory or Indulgences, but merely prints the history, good and bad. This is what a historian's job is, not the garbage that was posted last week.
Regards
Facts are facts, Harley. What one does with those facts is what makes all the difference. One can either take those facts and work for reform (as was done through the Council of Trent, and other acts of those times), or one can throw Christianity out the window, along with the abuses (as what happened in the Protestant schism). The correct path to take is reform of the Church, rather than promulgating further schism.
Harley, if you were to ever ask me, I have always said that Luther brought out some very important issues. But those issues needed to be, and were, fixed within the Church.
But keep reading future installments, though, and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.
Luther and others came to the conclusion the Church had veered far from its origins. Reform was impossible. With all due respect, the results of doctrinal corruption was formalized at Trent, with it's focus on man's free will. Trent reacted to everything opposite the Reformation so there would never have been any reform inside the Church.
There is nothing I see in your post that contradicts anything that has been so far stated. I'm confident that your future posts will simply bear out the facts and I welcome another perspective.
Thanks for the post, MM. Now see what happened to you guys in the West after 1054! :)
Historical revisionism. Considering Luther's contradicting of himself, repeatedly, along with all of his other problems; drunkenness, schizophrenia, paranoia, inability to control his libido, et al, it's quite the stretch for you to definitively claim what conclusion(s) he came to. This is hardly the person you want to build a religious foundation upon.
"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."
Luther letter to Pope Leo X, May 30, 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."
Luther letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519
Funny. We can say the same thing about a good many of the Popes, Cardinals and the rest of the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church during this same era. If you want to throw stones, remember the stain glass windows.
I suppose historical revisionism is in the eye of the beholder.
Um, the Church was founded upon Christ.
Carry on.
My "church" was built upon the Rock of Christ Jesus.
All other foundations are sinking sand.
Carry on. :-)
2 Pet. 2:18 "For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error."
1 Cor. 3:18-21 "18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be Wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The LORD knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men."
Ps. 94:11 "The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity."
2 Tim. 2:19 "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The LORD knoweth them that are His. And, Let every one that nameth the Name of Christ depart from iniquity."
Man's foolish brand of "wisdom" redefines every need of man. Take, for example, the need of Love. Love is foundational to every need of every man. To trust the vain notions of fallible creatures as wise counsel in defining Love, works HAVOC and DESTRUCTION on every area of life in which Love is required-- and Love is required in every area of life.
"Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD" (Jeremiah 17:5). Notice in this verse, the LORD says that if you trust flesh, you depart from Him--
"maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD."
God is no respecter of persons, why would He be respecter of churches, ie: denominations.
Lets begin honoring God together, the Men of God we are
Carry on.
My "church" was built upon the Rock of Christ Jesus.
All other foundations are sinking sand.
Matthew 16:18-19 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Of course, we have the greek words "petros" vs "petra". Those are derived from the same root: "petros". And they both are synonymous.
However, as I am sure you know, this event happened in Roman Palestine/the geography of modern Israel. The spoken language among the locals there was aramaic, not greek. If you were to take a look at the Peshitta Aramaic text, you'd find that both "peter" and "rock" are translations of the word "keepa." (I know, you don't believe me. Look at a PDF of Matt. 16 here. [remember, you have to read from right to left with the semetic scripts]) -- oh, btw, now you know where the name "cephas" comes from -- a hellinization of the word "keepa" (or "kipa", depending upon who does the transliteration).
If you'd like accounts from the Church Fathers, I'll be happy to oblige...it's just a little late to do so tonight.
Now, I realize that I'm just a dumb old Catholic and I don't knows ya Bible nealy as well as ya protestants does, but it seems pretty clear to me. Jesus called Peter "the Rock" -- Jesus handed Peter "the keys." Maybe I'm just a little dumb old Catt-o-licker, but I am not usually in the habit of arguing with the Bible. And the Bible says that Jesus handed the responsibility and authority for the Christian church to Peter. Now if you'd like to argue with the Bible, feel free. I won't stop you for a minute.
Boy you'd better be glad this is a protestant thread. If you posted something like that on a Catholic thread, they'd be all over you like white on rice.
Oh, wait, This IS a catholic thread.
That being the case... good luck. :-)
:)
The evil power, who hates all that is good and plots against the salvation of men, constituted Simon at that time the father and author of such wickedness, as if to make him a mighty antagonist of the great, inspired apostles of our Saviour. For that divine and celestial grace which co-operates with its ministers, by their appearance and presence, quickly extinguished the kindled flame of evil, and humbled and cast down through them "every high thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of God." Wherefore neither the conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the others who arose at that period could accomplish anything in those apostolic times. For everything was conquered and subdued by the splendors of the truth and by the divine word itself which had but lately begun to shine from heaven upon men, and which was then flourishing upon earth, and dwelling in the apostles themselves. Immediately the above-mentioned impostor was smitten in the eyes of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash, and after the evil deeds done by him had been first detected by the apostle Peter in Judea, he fled and made a great journey across the sea from the East to the West, thinking that only thus could he live according to his mind. And coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty co-operation of that power which was lying in wait there, he was in a short time so successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt there honored him as a god by the erection of a statue. But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome s against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.Eusebius, Church History, Book II, Chap 14: Written 265 AD
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.Iraneus, Adversus Haereses (Book 3, Chap 3)
Oh, and as to the ref to 1 Pet 5:13, consider this: Babylon was often a metaphoric reference to Rome and the Roman Empire. Cf, Rev 17:5, 18:2, 18:10, 18:21. It's sort of funny that another page on the site you referenced mentions that. But, I guess consistency isn't important, isn't it?
Ok, how about white on maggots:
Almost half of those are pink. That's getting closer to a better analogy though. ...flies on something. The last time folks saw one of my favorite rice dishes, they thought it was maggots. If I didn't know better, I'd guess it was too.
Well, I'm color blind, so I didn't notice.
Still don't.
As far as I can tell, they are all Navajo White.
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.