Posted on 05/26/2017 6:13:24 AM PDT by ebb tide
It's not that I was defending Luther, but more that I was criticizing the less-than well founded attacks upon the man.
Obviously, I'd need to spoon-feed fuller explanations to you, yet you've not addressed repeated queries posed to you that you would be willing (or not) to read information at links provided.
Instead, you were dismissive, leading me to think you didn't even bother reading what was there -- although I am supposed to go buy a book from Amazon.com, and read through the whole thing in search of some unspecified alleged quote (among a few you have posted) that you've not specifically indicated was in that one book, much less WHERE it could be found if it was in that book.
No, that's not how this works. You're fooling with the wrong guy.
How can you you disprove my quotes of Luther if you willingly refuse to read his own works?
I spoon feed you Luther.
You spoon feed me nothing but third party quotes.
Do you realize you have not once quoted your own arch-heretic on this thread in his defense? Just smoke and mirrors.
It’s obvious to me that you don’t know squat about Luther nor his evil works.
Everyone of your links were to the same numskulls' website, which I have already been very aware of. I quote Luther; you link to numskulls.
There was introduction to the explanations I had alluded to earlier. It seems obvious to me you did not read any of what was linked to, or at the least you cannot point to what is wrong about it.
So far, other than a link to Amazon.com., you've provided nothing but spit, and insults.
For all we know, some of what you have quoted could have come from someone's notes, and those been badly truncated.
Oh, puh-leaze. You've provided nothing as for source from where you copied/pasted from, but instead directed me to Amazon.com.
A great deal of Luther's writings are available, online FOR FREE in English translation.
Yet, that is not so regarding critical commentary in regards to Martin Luther, and regarding historical treatments of Luther.
It is yourself who is not fooling anyone, save perhaps yourself.(?)
Sippo is "not qualified"...but you are? Like, enough to offhandedly pass judgement upon Sippo in this matter? Nice try, but no dice. Nobody should buy your arguments unless they were critically short of sailboat fuel, and desperate. So far there nothing there but "wind". Hot air. Not to be confused with 'black gold... Texas-T'...
You dismiss Sippo... blow hot air all over the guy, well, alrighty then. What about Roman Catholic historians who are qualified, and in places very much agree with much of what Swan has to say about Luther, and the historical treatment of the man, from Roman Catholics?
Will I need to spoon-feed that listing of commentary to you -- or will you read it, yourself?
I've noticed that you never directly answer those sort of questions previously posed to yourself here, save but to answer in pure insolence.
You want to argue, do you?
Here ya' go, go argue with a long list of Catholic historians which Swam many years ago took the trouble to read, cite, and provide footnotes for precisely where among those historian's writings he was quoting them.
From internet Wayback;
highlighting portions of Catholic scholarship, and discussions among Catholic and Protestant scholars concerning other 'Catholic' scholar's written works) concerning Martin Luther, including how he'd been widely, and generally misrepresented/mistreated by Roman Catholics since Cochlaeus, as outlined in what James Swan cites from a variety of scholars. Here below, an example of that, in discussion of;
Adolf Herte was a German Catholic historian that did an in-depth study on Catholic approaches to Luther up until the Twentieth Century. In his work, he proved that all biographies of Luther (with very few exceptions) simply echoed the vilification of the Sixteenth Century Catholic author Cochlaeus. Herte went on to trace the influence of Cochlaeus on Denifle, Grisar, Cristiani, Paquier, and Maritan. After reading Herte’s work, the Roman Catholic review Theologie und Seelsorge stated, “One finishes reading these volumes with the discovery that the atmosphere of Reformation studies has changed.”[57]An evaluation of Herte:
“Very different from Lortz but just as important in the changing attitude toward Luther was Adolf Herte's Das katholische Lutherbild im Bann der Luther-kommentare des Cochlaeus. Probably because of its great size-three large volumes-and technical scholarly character it has never been translated into English, a fact which also helps to explain the relative tardiness of the Luther re-evaluation among English-speaking Catholics. Herte's purpose was simple-to examine the influence of Cochlaeus on Catholic literature through the centuries and to evaluate Cochlaeus' portrayal. On the former point he showed that almost all Catholic biographies of Luther (including Denifle, Grisar, Maritain, and many others) leaned very heavily on Cochlaeus' evidence and interpretation. In regard to Cochlaeus' reliability he concluded that the whole portrayal was a caricature reflecting the author's own deep aversion to and hatred of Luther. Not that Cochlaeus was completely false. He knew the extant Luther literature as no one else of his time. He helped to preserve some valuable original materials. He admitted that Luther's New Testament translation stimulated the religious hunger for the Word of God among the people. Yet, the composite picture of Luther was thoroughly unreliable because of Cochlaeus' deep personal antipathy which predetermined what he could see in Luther. Herte's careful scholarship has helped to free modern Catholic historians from bondage to the traditional picture and given great impetus to the modem search for a more accurate understanding of Luther. It will take considerable time, however, for Herte's influence to purge Catholic consciousness and literature of the assumptions that have been building up for centuries.”[58]
Among commentary under VI, Joseph Loretz F. Criticism of Luther by Lortz
Jared Wicks comments:
“[Lortz] pointed out extremes in Luther, such as a lack of restraint in fulminating against his opponents. Lortz found in Luther an extravagance ill-befitting a teacher submissive to the word of God. Impulsive in interpreting the Scriptures, Luther distorted the full message of the New Testament by subjective selectivity. But there is for Lortz a large reservoir of Catholic content in Luther, and not just in the young Luther. Even the elder Luther, often bitter and crude in attacking the priesthood and papacy, was a teacher of the sovereignty of God, a defender of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and an effective teacher of faith in Christ the Savior. Lortz's account of Luther was critical, but his criticism was penetrated by amazement over Luther's pulsating spiritual richness, the wide range of his talents, the vastness of his productive labor for the new community, and the concentration of all his thought on God's grace revealed in Christ and transmitted by the Gospel. Lortz gave Catholics an image of Luther marked by prophetic greatness.”[56]
As to the alleged subjectivity;
Johannes Hessen (1947)
A. Overview of J. Hessen’s Attitude toward Luther
Johannes Hessen was a Catholic professor in philosophy of religion at Cologne. Perhaps the most startling observation put forth by Hessen is his denial of Luther’s ultimate subjectivity. As noted above, Joseph Lortz accuses Luther of subjectivism and individualism. Hessen rejects this:“[Luther’s] great experience was a meeting with God, with the God who encountered him in Christ and his Gospel. It means a complete attachment to God’s Word, which contains the witness about Christ and possesses for Luther the character of an unassailable, absolute norm.”[59]
Scholars explain Hessen’s denial of Luther’s subjectivism:
“[Luther’s] fundamental experience may have been subjective, but only formally; in content it was without doubt objective, for, by the mediation of Christ, it was a real meeting with God. Thus Luther was not an individualist. He was a reformer in the true sense of the word, that is, a restorer whose sole aim was to bring back the pure Gospel from which, in his eyes, the Church had strayed.”[60]
“[Luther’s] own agonizing struggle about a "gracious God" was the same path Paul had trod, and it brought Luther to the same childlike trust in the undeserved grace of God. Not pride or ego but God and his grace were the basic forces at work in Luther. His experiences, although subjective in form, were actually an objective confrontation with God, because Luther's faith was grounded so completely in Christ and grew so completely out of Word and Sacrament. Hessen disagrees thoroughly with Lortz's charge that Luther was subjectivistic to the core. He sees no similarity at all between Luther and modern subjectivism or individualism.”[61]
“Hessen contends that Luther was no individualist, but a reformer in the true sense of that word—that is to say, a restorer of the God-given Gospel from which the Church had strayed.”[62]
Really? Perhaps not in those [limited] words, but nonetheless many Roman Catholics have appeared to believe (have faith?) that the Holy Spirit guides the process. Although there is some amount of disagreement, as
https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/picking-pope-holy-spirit-or-groupthink includes some disconcerting(?) discussion towards, after having led off with;
Vatican City In Catholic theology, as in the popular imagination, the closed-door conclave to elect a new pope is supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit.There's no horse-trading or lobbying, no insider deal-making or outside influences allowed. Just red-robed cardinals solemnly entering the Sistine Chapel, accompanied only by prayers and their consciences, sitting beneath Michelangelo's fresco of the Last Judgment and discerning God's will on who should be the next successor to St. Peter.
At least that's the theory. The last millennium has shown that papal elections can be fraught with politics or worse, and can take months or even years of wrangling to reach a resolution. [underlining added for emphasis]
Here's a guy (linked to, and quoted, below) that swerves a bit back and forth over various lines --Holy Spirit leads, but could possibly not be followed ---to end up conveying the notion that the Holy Spirit will, in the end, still have it's own way, so to speak;
Ron Conte,Jr. labels and identifies prevenient grace being the prevailing factor, describing that;
And speaking of prevenient grace, the Cardinals in each conclave are not only guided by divine providence, they are also guided by prevenient grace — a type of grace which is always effective, apart from any cooperation by free will. Subsequent grace is subject to free will, and can be accepted or rejected. But prevenient grace is God operating, not cooperating.
A bit further down, he firms things up when he says;
Ending with this;
Up-page from where I'd initially quoted him, Conte had written;
On the other hand, some say that the Cardinals can reject the grace of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so as to choose any man at all to be Pope, even one who is very sinful (e.g. Michael Voris). This claim is inaccurate. Certainly, God offers grace to the Cardinals when making this decision, just as God offers grace to every human person who makes any decision of any significance. Grace is always available, even to great sinners. Cardinals can decline to cooperate with that grace. But there are two other considerations, often overlooked in this matter.First, divine providence encompasses all thing. Even the fallen angels and the most wicked human persons on earth cannot escape from the providence of God. Nothing occurs at all, unless God at least permits it. And providence is not merely passive, especially when providence is guiding the Church. God actively guides the Church, not only by grace, but also by providence.
How does divine providence affect the choice of Pope? The Council of Trent refers to the Pope at the time of (part of ) the Council, Pope Paul III in these words: “in the name of our most holy father and lord in Christ, Paul III, by divine providence Pope” [Trent, 6th Session, On Justification, Preamble]. The Council asserted that Pope Paul III was chosen “by divine providence” to be the Pope. Now this assertion is not dogmatic; it is not an infallible teaching. But it should weigh on our understanding of the office of Pope. [bolding & underlining added]
See tagline???
From the first link --National Catholic Reporter-- in light of;
That's the upshot of a 2006 study by an Australian researcher who analyzed the voting patterns from seven conclaves in the 20th century (reconstructed from leaks that emerged afterward). The study found that cardinals who changed their minds did so chiefly because they saw the votes tipping toward a single candidate and went with the expected winner.These "strategic" voters -- as opposed to "sincere" voters who backed the same person through each ballot -- thus pushed the conclave to a speedier-than-expected resolution, according to J.T. Toman, an expert in econometrics at the University of Sydney and author of the paper, "The Papal Conclave: How do Cardinals Divine the Will of God?"
"There are two sources of information in the conclave cardinals could use to estimate the probability of election success for a cardinal: the observed vote counts and the verbal communications that occur at lunch and in the evenings," Toman wrote.
At the end of the day, she said, the subtle arm-twisting over coffee or cocktails didn't matter so much. Instead, "the observed vote tallies" proved to be "the dominant force" in rallying the cardinals around a single candidate.
and most particularly this;
there are fuller ramifications to consider, ranging far beyond the single subject matter of papal elections.
What of everything else? Though the Spirit of the Lord -- I do have faith ---- would much prefer to have men be as one with, and follow (if not even sort-of flow with) the Lord, men otherwise appear to rarely do that, at least in entirety. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit, although apparently can be resisted, is not -- has never been resisted when it comes to things such as doctrinal developments within Roman Catholicism?
Every other ekklesia makes [theological] mistakes, or else is schismatic, but not the Church of Rome (Alone)?
I'm sorry, sir, but I know too much. I simply cannot put faith in "church" (any particular church) to that extent.
Christ alone, brother. For His Glory alone, Amen.
So what?
The Catholic Church has never taught that the Holy Spirit or God chooses the Pope.
I am well aware that this superstitious notion is widely held.
Go ahead, provide active link from where you copied and pasted that particular quote from. I'd wager that it's been entirely severed from context of what else the man was trying to say.
Besides, I need not defend Luther as if he was not only "infallible in teaching of faith and morals" but impeccable when speaking his own views also.
That first kind of thing is attributed to RC popes. The second is provided to those same [popes] as excuse for particular pope's own personalities, and extended even to the vile wickedness found in some -- yet fully denied for persons such as Martin Luther who was far less wicked than many a "good" Pope.
The display of such double standards in light of bad, and not so "good" Popes, undermines credibility of RC apologists who delight in vilifying such as Luther (and Calvin, too, it could be added?).
I need justify nothing (to you) pertaining to Luther. Instead my intent and aim has been to show what truths concerning the man diligent & honest scholars (more honest than Cochlaeus and imitators) have found through their own intensive studies of Martin Luther, and his writings. Though it may be arguable that Luther could err on particular points, in the one you cited in the post to which I here reply, I do think you simply do not understand what he was driving at, at that time.
Are you an accomplished historian? A renowned theologian? Just who are you that your own opinions should matter to others?
Are you what more simply what among Roman Catholicism could be described as a "layman"?
Here [below] a convert to Catholicism, being quoted from books, and published articles;
John Todd was formally an agnostic who converted to Catholicism. His major works on Luther are Martin Luther: A Biographical Study,[110] and Luther: A Life.[111] Todd’s books are a well-balanced approach to Luther: one senses neither a lurking negative polemic or an obvious adulation. Todd says in the introduction toMartin Luther: A Biographical Study: “If the author were compelled at the point of a gun to express his opinion of the results of Luther’s life, whether they were good or bad according to his Christian scale of values, the answer would still be variegated, that some were good and some were bad. He might even murmur that Luther was Justus et peccator [Justified by God, but still a sinful human].[112] Todd concludes in his later book, Luther: A Life:“My principal image [of Luther] is of a man driven, driven by a passion for the Divine, driven too, by a horror of evil; convinced of its eventual futility, he was ever conscious of its threat, and his life was one of prayer … Under the rumbustious lover of life lay sensitivity, intelligence and imagination, and a failure to come to terms with a world which was never good enough, a failure he found confirmed in the crucifix.”
[113] Todd is acutely aware of the previous vilification of Luther by previous Roman Catholic historians, as well as the limitations of recent Catholic evaluations:
“It is only quite recently that passions have really begun to cool within the Protestant and Catholic traditions over Luther’s life and works…The beliefs of authors in the past made it almost inevitable that Luther would be treated either as a hero or a villain. More recently this has been mitigated a little, but, even so, authors who are themselves in the Catholic tradition, if they have not ‘exposed’, have tended to ‘explain’ or perhaps apologize or patronize Luther.” [114]
Todd’s books have been called a “sensitive and moving biography by a Catholic layman who has done his homework on Luther very well.”[115] Todd avoids vilifying Luther: “At points where Todd might have been sharply critical of Luther he desists. Luther's temper, his attitude to monasticism and marriage, his role in the Peasants' War and in the Philip of Hesse affair cannot be ignored, but Todd has no intention of using these to build some kind of case for serious spiritual or mental deficiency in Luther.”[116] Todd also avoids using Luther’s Table Talk utterances against him (as is a common practice of Luther detractors: “…[C]are has to be exercised in using the Table Talk. It is quite easy to make a selection of passages, combine these with excerpts from the work of admitted enemies and produce a lurid picture of a coarse blasphemer. Such a picture does not tally with the evidence as a whole and cannot be taken seriously.”[117]
A. Todd’s View of The Indulgence Controversy
Todd gives a general overview of the religious piety of Luther’s time. He finds the “daily life of piety had much superstition about it”[118] in which pagan beliefs and “an attitude to the sacramental and devotional life…tended to be mechanical, even ‘commercial’, to use Luther’s own later description.”[119] “The sacramental and devotional life…was treated in fact, sometimes, as though it were magic, and this again ties back to a pagan past.”[120] Todd finds that abuse was not uncommon throughout the western church: “…[I]t was often said and written that a specified number of Masses would achieve some object, usually the release of some soul from purgatory. This of course was severely denounced at the Council of Trent- but not of course till it had been going on virtually unchecked for centuries.”[121] “Indulgences were similarly abused.”[122] “…[B] that the abuses were widely tolerated in practice is not in doubt, and the people were in no position to distinguish between what was ‘tolerated’, happening day in and day out, and what was formally taught."[123] “We have a picture then, of Christian life and prayer deeply permeating every part of life, and abuses quite widely corrupting it, and mixed with it many pagan habits of thought and action.”[124]Todd is critical of the Roman Church that condemned Luther: “Rome is frankly criticized for its whole approach to Luther. Instead of taking his concerns seriously it opted for the "easier" route, ecclesiastical pressure to silence him. The curia was blind to the theological issues, unable to believe that a critical German was really trying to work for the good of the church.”[125]
“Moreover, with a praiseworthy frankness, Todd describes again Rome's attitude in the conflict following on the affair of the indulgences. Imbued with a sense of her own power, caught up by all sorts of political demands, the Papacy was incapable of taking Luther seriously, incapable of conducting a careful examination of the Ninety-five Theses and their manifold theological implications. To the appeals for reform addressed to her from Germany, she replied "in the form of a personal and canonical attack". When he was accused of heresy and excommunicated by the Bull, Exsurge Domine, Luther began to doubt Papal authority. And when he had broken his ties with Rome by burning the code of the Canon Law, opposition to the Pope became a "psychological necessity" to him. Yet even when he was convinced that the Papacy was the Antichrist, he never set out to create a new institution; he still continued "to see himself simply as a ‘reformer’ of the Church".[126]
Todd notes, “Pope Julius II issued the bull Liquet omnibus in 1510 establishing an indulgence the income from which would help pay for the building of St. Peter’s.”[127] The bull had a “deliberately financial nature”[128] and said, "Moreover all Christians of either sex, secular as well as regular... who shall effectively place a pious alms in the chest for the above-mentioned building [St. Peter's], may gain the fullest remission of their sins..." Todd notes the bull "seems deliberately loose in places"[129] that would lead one to believe that sins are forgiven by an indulgence. Todd uncovers the fact that the money collected from the St. Peter’s indulgence campaign did not go directly to Rome. No less than half of the money collected went to German bankers, because the Archbishop of Mainz had "bargained with Rome to be allowed to keep half what was contributed for the indulgence..."[130] which he owed to the German bankers. Todd also notes that Tetzel's pay for his preaching work was a "princely sum".[131]. Todd explains that when Tetzel got a copy of Luther's 95 Theses, Tetzel said " The heretic would be in the flames within three weeks."[132] Tetzel was a Dominican, and the Dominicans directed the Inquisition. The request to charge Luther for heresy did come, because Luther attacked not only indulgences, but a Dominican as well: “Many must have realized that in attacking Tetzel Luther had engaged Goliath. Tetzel was a Dominican. The Dominicans, who directed the Inquisition, were all-powerful in the Curia at Rome, and again in Saxony.”[133] “The Dominican chapter had sent a denunciation of Luther to Rome for suspicion of heresy.”[134]
Todd argues that Rome was not able to address Luther constructively or helpfully on the 95 Theses. The Church was mired in abuse, and its theologians had no desire to hear from one its biblical theologians. Todd says,
“Luther’s opponents were unable to take him seriously because for them the Church was simply ‘God’s Church’ possessing an authority almost identical with that of God himself, and the Bible something secondary, a mine of texts, which could be taken directly or allegorically, or in any way that would harmonize with the Church’s traditional practice; a practice must be defensible, indeed must be in a sense divine, if the Church had sanctioned it, and the Church’s actions ipso facto received God’s approbation.”
[135] In other words, Todd argues that the sixteenth century Roman Catholic Church functioned by sola ecclesia, and whatever it did, was right. A Church that functions this way can never take any opposition seriously. If it did, it would mean it’s demise because it would admit it is in error. To admit an infallible Church is in error is to admit it is not an infallible Church.B. An overview of Todd’s approach to Luther:
Overall, Todd treats Luther as an honest theologian, with important insights: “Luther's message was not solely the rather austere theology of justification but a return to the New Testament themes of the Fatherhood of God, the sending of the Son, and the Son's message of forgiveness and love for all men. Beneath the polemics and the theology lay this concern for man, the personal appeal. He spoke of Christ the man who had suffered for them, and had taken on the bitter life of the world. Luther himself lived out his life as one who shared all things with others, an ordinary honest man.”[136]“In Todd's eyes, Luther is a serious student, a pious and intelligent monk,[137] sensible and brave,[138] well thought of by his superiors[139] and unwittingly possessing all the qualities of a leader.[140] Because of the emotional tension that marked his relationship with his father, he had a tender spot in regard to the question of authority and was more conscious than the most of men of his sin before the righteousness of God.[141] Although Todd thinks that Luther's experience was not without certain psychological sources—he speaks in this context of "nervous anxiety" and of a tendency to a "certain morbidity"[142]—he still emphasizes that Luther was not "unbalanced”.[143] Moreover, following on excellent passages on the Anfechtung and the tentatio tristitiae, he says that if one wants to understand Luther, one must not isolate the religious factor in him. It was because the theology of merits which was dominant at the outset of the sixteenth century did not give an answer to the question set to Luther by the separation of man from God that he found the solution to the problem in the doctrine of justification by faith.”[144]
“…Todd thinks that the doctrine of justification by faith is not contrary to Roman Catholic dogma. He rightly points out that, even if Luther attacked scholasticism,[145] he is nonetheless one of the heirs of medieval theology[146]; he did not want to destroy everything that had gone before,[147] but to cause to shine out in the heart of the Church the teaching which he found in Scripture and which, because it had calmed his own fears, seemed to him necessary for man.[148] We must note in this connection that, concerned as Luther was with the individual as such,[149] he was nevertheless not an individualist.[150] His theology is in no sense anthropocentric. It does not start out from man by way of some self-styled particular revelation—contrary to what Ronald Knox imagines when he makes Luther an "enthusiast"[151]; it stands on the authority of Scripture.[152] It does not turn man in on himself but conducts him to the merciful God who in the person of his Son justifies the sinner.[153] Todd emphasizes again that Luther is not antinomian; the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer is not only the cloak veiling his unworthiness, but also the power which allows the justified man to live a new life.[154]”[155]
Todd summarized Luther in 1982 by saying:
“Of Luther himself it is impossible to speak summarily. The complex and remarkable story of his life, the tally of his works, and the witness of a great number of friends, acquaintances and enemies are there. Many loved him, many revered him, some were frightened of him, a few resentful. No one accused him, with any semblance of justification, of double dealing, or of cowardice. My principal image is of a man driven, driven by a passion for the Divine, driven, too, by a horror of evil; convinced of its eventual futility, he was ever conscious of its threat, and his life was one of prayer. His friends remembered him standing by the window of his room praying, often aloud. Under the rumbustious lover of life lay sensitivity, intelligence and imagination, and a failure to come to terms with a world which was never good enough, a failure he found confirmed in the crucifix, but glorified in what followed. At the Wartburg he wrote: ‘They threaten us with death. They would do better to threaten us with life.’”[156]
The notion is conveyed, at least had been at some time in the past, and among more than a mere few is still clung to, as part of their "faith" they place in the OTC (one true church, the one that has it chief-most headquarters in Rome, not anywhere else). Then by some, it is qualified, withdrawn partway...
Here's another article; https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2013/03/12/what-the-holy-spirit-does-at-the-papal-conclave/20146 that appears to me to like to have things both ways-- to convey the sense that the Holy Spirit is guiding, and is being followed, even though it is also admitted, as the author put it;
Contrasted with that, regarding 'popes' that are positively favored, then the idea that the Holy Spirit was leading the conclave (and rightfully followed?) is subtly conveyed. I have found in my own readings that this type of approach is rather common.
Except when they do? But not for "bad" popes.
Yet will you admit it is still a common enough belief among some Catholics (significant numbers, even)?
Not all Roman Catholics are as 'sophisticated' as modern-day American Catholics well-steeped in latest apologetic.
I had in previous comment addressed to you, provided examples of the 'common belief' (which you have labeled superstition) being expressed (by what some Catholics derisively refer to as "the Catholic Fish-Wrap"?) and by yet another Roman Catholic who fancies himself Catholic theologian, https://ronconte.wordpress.com/my-credentials-as-a-roman-catholic-theologian/ and has written what appears to be a large amount of 'Catholic' theological commentary; http://www.catholicplanet.com/books.htm.
Ok. I believe you, in that. Where exactly the superstition began is anyone's guess, but I did provide for this forum some amount of discussion of where it either began -- or more likely -- one stage (Council of Trent) where the idea was fortified (in the Prologue to 6th Session, according to Ron Conte Jr.) and perhaps serves as a sort of way-point touchstone for those who favor the notion.
Marionism began somewhat similarly -- as superstition(s). Then again, that had more uumph from it's beginnings, and she's not around for anyone take note of some perceived error. In fact, the very idea there could be some fault, or error (sin, more actually) on her part, has been dogmatically declared to be an impossibility.
So what?
The Catholic Church has never taught that God chooses the Pope.
Articles by this or that Catholic are irrelevant.
Now you repeat yourself. Didn't I just tell you a bit about "so what"?
Those were merely some small evidences of what you had basically referred to as superstitious belief.
The superstition that God indeed does guide the process ---efficaciously--- had long been fostered among the Roman Catholic church, including from high levels within that church. Although nowadays there is effort to distance themselves from it (but keeping it in play, as much as possible, as much as they can get away with -- while denying it out of another corner of their mouths, too).
That's all part of the "so what".
In 1959, after several years as an editor at Longmans Green, Mr. Todd and two other members of the publishing concern left to found Darton, Longman & Todd, an ecumenical religious publishing house. As Catholic editor, Mr. Todd published Karl Rahner, Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac among European theologians as well as the Canadian Bernard Lonergan and the Indian Raymond Panikkar.
Born May 27, 1918, in Liverpool, Mr. Todd was a conscientious objector in 1940, and lived in the war years in a rural commune he helped organize. The experience, he wrote, shattered his "Rousseau-esque idea of the ultimate goodness of human beings."
I quote Luther directly; you scrape the bottom of the barrel for your quotes.
Well go ahead: start quoting Luther to defend Luther. By the way, weren't you saying if the source wasn't in German, it's not necessarily a valid quote?
What the Catholic Church teaches is in the Scriptures, creeds, and solemn definitions of popes and councils.
Speeches, letters, articles, hints from “high places,” and suchlike are immaterial.
It is much more yourself ---who, until you could ever understand what the man was saying --- should not quote him anymore.
Luther was not inventing anything new, but he did flesh particular ideas out, following those to what seemed to himself the honest ends which he personally found and experienced within himself, and could see in other men too, doing so at a time when the greater part of the Latin church had very much lost it's way --- had converted what must be understood by way of spirit into being ceremony and pagan-like superstitions concerning the things of God-- a God few appeared in that era, to know. In place of needed understanding of the working of the Holy Ghost within a man -- and how man has natural tendency to pull away (as was established in OT scripture through the long experience of the Jews) was put ceremony, and outward practices of church and it's priesthood.
None of us initially, at the very least, approach God due to our own choosing. Council of Orange settled that, with remaining influences from there still in today's Roman Catholic catechism.
Apologies for the bolding of the near entire comment. I'd intended to bold only the one freeper name, dragonblustar, since that's being used as a freeper "name".
Luther was not inventing anything new,...
Yeah, right. Then why are y'all celebrating the 500th yr anniversary of his revolt this coming October? Did Christ's Church have it all wrong for 1500 years, until Luther came along. Luther knew better than Christ apparently.
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.