Posted on 10/30/2016 10:14:29 AM PDT by ebb tide
Reread your post. You said “a lot of Catholics”, not “some”.
I merely made a subset of that “lot” that you speak of, those Catholics who disapprove of Francis.
Re-read the original post, Luther hated the Papacy, the Catholic Church, and Catholic Sacraments. Catholics on this forum who critique Pope Francis do none of the above.
And personally, I think Bergoglio hates the Catholic Church and It’s Sacraments. And that’s why the whole world adores him, while traditional Catholics fear him.
The line was straight from the article. It is an easy question: What is the difference between that quote and what you do?
I was speaking of your post #14. You said, “a lot of Catholics”. You did not say “some” Catholics.
I’ll answer it. Luther was addressing his pope like this because he preferred his own version of the Christian religion to the Catholic Faith. The Catholics here who take issue with “Pope” Francis take issue with him because Francis prefers Francis religion over the Catholic religion.
A very clear difference.
Having said that I rarely see anyone actually call Francis an ass.
And therein is the problem with roman catholicism. Everything has to circle through Mary.
Mary does not play a role in our salvation.
Mary is the mother of Christ. That is all.
She is not a mediatrix, co-redemtrix or advocate.
That roman catholicism advances this is a false teaching.
So you Lutherans contradict Luther?
Interesting!
Only where he was wrong. Which wasn’t too often.
Would love to know where you think we’re contradicting him there though...seems perfectly consistent to me.
I am not the one to give you a tutorial on Mary. I was once like you, for many decades. I know a brick wall when I see one. I was one. It would be a waste of my time and yours.
Faith is a gift, and understanding a fruit of the Spirit, but the Church with Vatican II has itself rather shut out Mary as the hierarchy entertained infiltrators and heretics who were/are enemies of the Church.
I would not expect you to even stumble across any understanding on Mary. Many Catholics by now do not know her either, as the centuries of the faithful did, who came before them.
It is admittedly a great loss for all. The wolves have struck, to steal and destroy and buried plenty of knowledge.
I’ll answer it. Luther was addressing his pope like this because he preferred his own version of the Christian religion to the Catholic Faith. The Catholics here who take issue with “Pope” Francis take issue with him because Francis prefers Francis religion over the Catholic religion.
Well the Catholic church at the time was selling forgiveness and executing those who opposed it, so... yeah I suppose based on that he did prefer “his” version of Christianity. Of course, “his” version of Christianity was merely what the Catholic church historically taught, which it was no longer teaching.
So there’s really no difference between today and then - both Francis’s detractors and the medieval reformers both argued that what the pope was teaching wasn’t Catholicism. The difference is that Francis is nowhere nearly as - dare I say - demonic as the some of the medieval popes.
I've read a great deal of roman catholic teachings on Mary. The overwhelming majority are false.
The catholic cannot point to anywhere in Scripture where mary is accorded the status of advocate, co-redemtrix or mediatrix.
Nor can the catholic point to Scripture that indicates we have to wear a piece of cloth to avoid the hell-fire as catholicism claims an apparition posing as Mary claimed.
I don't see a brick wall. I see false teachings in the roman catholic church on "mary".
Well, the brick wall is “sola scriptura”. Bible alone stunts all conversation or where remotely possible it is limited only to what is in the Bible. At least it did with me.
I was ignorant. I knew nothing of Christianity but the Bible. It was if the Bible gave us the Church. A crock.
The Church gave us the Bible. There was much that was not in the bible and common reason proves that point, as well as Scripture itself.
I recall walking out of an Episcopalian bible study once, when the pastor discussed faith and practices before the printing and common man use of the Bible. It was as if he had let a serpent loose before my eyes. Seriously, I left. Lol!
So, broad ignorance is not very authoritative, regardless of how puffed up one can sound in demonstrating it. That is the problem in a nut shell.
Mormons make the same argument as roman catholics.
However, we do have this from the Bible.
14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 NASB
The church did not give us the Bible.
God gave it to us.
Not for lack of trying. I wouldn't be offended because I think he is one as well, and am happy he isn't mine to worry about.
I have read your stuff before, while I can feel your angst but you usually are controlled and focused. My comment was directed because because the casual reader takes posted material without delving into motives of the individual writing them.
While Luther may have had some valid points in his original dissent, by his death he had fabricated a faith that was crafted to deal with his fears regarding his own soul. Even so, he certainly wouldn’t recognize what passes as “Lutheranism” today. His Pope would certainly have an easier time recognizing the Catholic faith today.
Selling indulgences was an abuse (which is wrong), but that was not all that Luther revolted against. He revolted against Church doctrine which was always Church doctrine.
So you are wrong. It is not the same thing.
I understand.
And of course, I don't agree that he revolted against "Church doctrine which was always Church doctrine." What was "revolted" against was not "always" Church doctrine, but was made up later. That doesn't mate me de facto wrong, it means we disagree. I of course, think you're wrong :)
Give me an example of a church doctrine that wasn’t always a doctrine of the Catholic Church at that time (doctrine, not abuses...which are two different things).
Give me an example of a church doctrine that wasn’t always a doctrine of the Catholic Church at that time (doctrine, not abuses...which are two different things).
The pope as de jure ruler of the church.
Transubstantiation.
The Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice.
More recently, papal infallibility, assumption of Mary. If there really is a faith delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3), then doctrine cannot change.
And let’s not even get into justification by faith alone or sola scriptura :)
Usually when a teaching is defined at a later point in time it does not mean it is new. It means that it has always been the teaching of the Church. The formal definition is made to combat heresies at the time, etc. and to make it clear that the teaching was always Church teaching.
I don't blame you for not knowing this as many, many Catholics don't even know this.
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.