Posted on 10/26/2008 12:52:26 PM PDT by Gamecock
Great! DO you have any more information about the popular edition?
I think I posted that info. Both the outrageously expensive facsimile edition and the popular American edition were written by Barbara Frale. The popular book is called The Templars: The Secret History Revealed by Barbara Frale and Umberto Eco and will be released in hardcover on Jan 12, 2009. The price is $16.50. A deal.
Do not use potty language - or references to potty language - on the Religion Forum. Do not shorten other posters’ names to that effect.
> "Obey your superiors and be subject to them, for they keep watch as having to render an account of your souls; so that they may do this with joy, and not with grief, for that would not be expedient for you." Hebrews 13:17
Martin Luther, the inventor of Sola Scriptura, apparently ignored that verse in Scripture because he defied his superiors. From where did Martin Luther's authority come? He was an Augustinian monk, and was not a Bishop. He had no authority at all. <
>He had no GOD given authority whatsoever,<
Only one who is ignorant of the Scriptures or seeks to misconstrue them could charge Luther with having no authority. Even a cursory knowledge of Scripture should bring to mind the multitude of men whom God raised up from obscurity in the Old Testament to challenge judges, priests, and prophets of Israel with being guilty of idolatry (Mic. 3:11), who, rather than being on the Lord's side, overall sought to kill such men as who justly spoke contrary to their desire (Jer. 26). And such did Rome seek to do to Luther.
Moving to the New Testament we see the LORD Himself reproving the then sacred magisterium of Israel for "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7), attributing Divine authority to unScriptural traditions, such as Rome does today (praying to saints, etc.), while the very apostles were imprisoned for teaching without rabbinical authority, but who responded, “We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Yet you charge Luther with having no authority to challenge the Pope. Just as God raised up prophets to testify to the impudent children of Israel of old, so He raised up Luther, despite his certain imperfections, to testify against Rome, which decreed herself as the one true church based, but they would not hear.
Of course, even some of your own disagree with such an extreme position as yours. http://www.romancatholicism.org/duty-resist.htm
>"Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses”
Dispensation of authority by GOD over His flock is the same today as it was then. <
While submission to ecclesiastical authority is mandated, this is predicated upon the legitimacy of said authority, which in the Bible was demonstrated by their supernatural power, Scriptural probity and personal integrity, but sadly for you Rome does not manifest such, and she certainly is not the Moses you liken her to, as instead of the ground swallowing Luther up, God began and raised up a restoration, albeit unfinished, of Scriptural faith which has abundantly reproved the pretensions of Roman supremacy.
>"It is to this church, to the believers, that Jesus gave the keys."
Sorry Luther, but you were wrong: The only place where Jesus gave the keys to anyone is in Matthew 16:19 and He gave them to Peter and to him alone. The Greek word used in this verse for 'you' is singular, second person.<
While it is wonderfully true that the LORD gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom, this apostolic authority was shared (Mt. 18:18), and as with authority under the O.T, it does not guarantee a group particular ecclesiastical infallibility whenever it states it is, nor a perpetuated Petrine papacy. God will preserve His church, Scripturally defined, which is contrary to that of Rome, even despite it's leaders, and He gives authority to those He will, using men of true faith rather than the criteria being based upon a particular ecclesiastical lineage which supposes to have authority over Scripture (which is established as such not due to man's decree, anymore than the the kingdom itself is (1 Cor. 4:20), but by it's transcendent manifest power and purity). You can invoke Caiaphas if you want us to follow Christ killers, but this is not the Old covenant with it's physical kingdom, but one that is first spiritual, into which every believer enters by faith (Col. 1:13). This is your foundational error, in which you both assume that the authenticity of Rome is proven by a proclaimed unbroken ecclesiastical linkage (as problematic as that is), rather than demonstrable Scriptural faith, which is what makes one a true Jew and Christian (Rm. 2:28, 29), and without which there would be no church. And that the “this rock” of Mt. 16:16 was Peter himself, rather than the subject of the preceding verses, that being the Christ of Peter's Divinely revealed faith confession:
(Mat 16:16-18) "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. {17} And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. {18} And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." For indeed, “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor. 12:3).
That is “this rock” refers to the revealed Christ as the foundational stone of the church is abundantly confirmed in the light of the rest of the New Testament with Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul all stating that Christ is the prophesied cornerstone (Mat_21:42; Mar_12:10; Luk_20:17; Rm. 9:33). While Peter himself also declares, "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 (1 Pet 2:7; cf. Act 4:11). In addition, Eph 2:20-21 plainly declares the church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the LORD." "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor 3:11).
And by effectual faith in Him one is baptized by the Spirit into the church (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 5:25), without which (and the underlying Old Testament Scriptures) the church would not exist. As the original shema declaration, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" (Deu 6:4) is the foundational confessional faith truth of Judaism, so the confession of the Divine Christ is to the Christian church. “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom 10:9-10). And by such faith in “the Rock of our salvation” (Ps. 95:1), the church shall prevail against the gates of Hell, for "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:5).
All this, along with other references in both testaments, makes the truth that Christ is the foundational Rock upon which the church is built to be one of the most abundantly substantiated doctrines in Scripture! By faith we stand upon the Rock, even as the apostles stood, and God is still building His church using men like Peter, who effectually confess Jesus as the Divine son of God. But that Peter is the foundational rock finds no like confirmation. And though he certainly was the brethren type leader of the apostles and exercised an overall apostolic pastoral role, we neither see any reference to him as the singular supreme head of the church universal, nor one command to all — even in the church epistles (and not even one mention of him in Romans) — to submit to Peter as such, much in contrast to Rome's often exaltation of him as a demi-god. (In addition, the church certainty was not chartered to reign over those without.)
And very critically, in no place does the Holy Spirit mandate or example a successor to Peter, other than that of ordination of pastors (and which provisions assumes they would be married, as Peter was).
>See the note regarding the previous remark made by Luther. The keys are the singular teaching authority of the Church, and if everyone had a set as Luther had claimed here, then each and every person automatically became his or her own pope. Isn't that exactly what happened in Protestantism with each person interpreting Scripture for himself?<
Not exactly, as while Christians are to be like the noble Bereans who examined the very apostles by the Scriptures (Acts 17:11), this requires submission to Heb. 13:17, and church discipline is exercised upon little or big popes who manifestly contradict Scripture. In fact, if those who hold to Sola Scriptura (meaning Scripture is the ultimate, but not singular, authority) allowed that anyone could believe anything and be right, it would allow Rome to do her thing. The evangelical position does not mean those in ecclesiastical authority are infallible, but that the Scriptures are, and it requires that what they teach be evidentially Scripturally sound. And that they reprove those who are erroneous in essential doctrines (and be liable themselves to correction), and limit the scope of things where some degree of disagreement is allowed. And many Catholics would be surprised to know that is the latter aspect Rome actually has a similar allowance.
Note that the very apostles presumed that truth loving souls would be persuaded by the Scriptures (Acts 17:22; 18:28; 28:13; Cor. 4:2), as well as supernatural apostolic testimony (Rm. 15:19), and the noble Berean's did in fact examine them by the Scriptures, rather than giving prior assent to them as infallible, as Rome requires for herself in order to be certain of truths. The difference is that the authenticity of an evangelical authority must be based upon overall Scriptural integrity, while Rome — though referencing Scripture where she can in proclamations, — ultimately protects her authority by her unwarranted presumption to infallibility, based upon her supposedly infallible rendering of Mt. 16, thus by her interpretation only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict.
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2Peter 1:20-21<
I am not sure if i have ever seen Rome officially invoke this text to substantiate her claim to be the supreme infallible interpreter, and if she does not it is to her credit, as such an interpretation contradicts the very claim (to infallibly interpret) you seek to support! 2 Peter 1:20-21 is NOT speaking about interpreting Scripture that has been written (which again, noble common men did), but instead it is about how Scripture was written - not as a work of the mere minds of men, but by the inspiration of God. And rather than promoting the idea that Scripture is an enigmatic book only to be rightly discerned by elite authorities, nor promoting infallibility due to an office, Peter is apostolically affirming to the scattered multitudes and for all time the integrity of the Scriptures as the foundation for their faith, and which class of revelation is singularly affirmed to be 100% inspired (2 Tim. 3:16). And by which truth loving souls, regardless of rank, should examine all things by.
>See? Luther was really saying to the world that he and his followers will reject the teaching of GOD and accept instead the teaching of man, namely his. Now that places him in violation of yet more verses,
>But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men". Acts 5:29
"If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of GOD is greater...". 1 John 5:9<
Rather, as the LORD reproved those who, like Rome, taught “for doctrines the commandments of men,” such as the law of Corban, and as Rome elevates her nebulous “church tradition” to be equal with Scripture — thereby essentially adding to a close canon — it is her gospel that is the testimony of men, which the Scriptures reprove, and it is the author of the latter authority that good men will obey!
>Where once the Reformation comprised one Church, it has now multiplied into 30,000+ christian denominations all claiming to be authentic.,
A contrived figure, the use of which some of your own have reproved, and which basically includes anything not of Rome and multitudes, like the LDS, who are actually are more like Rome than classic Protestantism, as they exalt another authority to be equal with Scripture and themselves as the final authority. And which, outside of historical Rome's unScriptural use of the sword of men, will continue to exists despite Rome's claims to supremacy. Your real enemies are easy access to Scripture (which allows those pesky Protestants to see the specious nature of so many of Rome's doctrines, and likely has restrained her from making many more) and freedom of religion, in which sound faith as well as heretics are tolerated. But while you are on Free Republic, your goal of Roman domination as well as classic Catholicism is contrary to it, and had the Rome continued in her theocratic way, a constitutional republic in America would have never existed. Meanwhile, if we separated Catholics according to the differences in faith like as the 30k figure much comes from, and which differences Rome widely effectually tolerates, then it too would be exist in multitudes of division. Of course, if unity itself were the goal you should move to n. Korea, but division because of zeal for truth is of a far greater value than unity at the expense of it, and while essential unity among typical Catholics is around manifest error, the essential unity among real evangelicals is in the truth of the gospel.
Like cells dividing (your analogy, without the cancer), it was (and still somewhat) those who do actually hold to Sola Scriptura and the gospel of salvation through repentant faith in the LORD Jesus and His sinless shed blood, not of merit in works of faith, that bears the fruit of regeneration and manifested the life giving faith world wide. In contrast, Rome is overall manifest as a spiritual graveyard of perfunctory professions, Biblical ignorance, and doctrines which require unwarranted assent to an autocratic self proclaimed infallible authority in order to be believed.
While her official doctrines are the foundation for this, what she effectual conveys is more indicative of the religion she really believes, which is a gospel that promotes confidence in the merit of one's works (Trent), as well as the power of the church for salvation, that by such, along with a basic belief in Jesus (whom many Catholic believe sinned), God in His mercy shall give them eternal life. The typical Catholic (and most mainline Protestants) has not come to the place of conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment, that they are utterly destitute of any merit whereby they many escape Hell fire or attain eternal life, and thus might humble themselves before god in surrender, and cast all their faith upon the risen LORD Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood, and so be justified by imputed righteous, appropriated by faith. I speak as a former devout Catholic, who become born again while being a faithful attending Catholic, and sought to serve therein for some years till the LORD clearly led me out to serve Him better, and can well testify of the blessed contrast between dead religion and that which gives life. To God be the glory!
>>Subject: Cathars: The Bad Men
>
>> Regarding the PBS video: The Secret Files of the Inquisition
>
>>The good men were not good. Sex between men and women including married couples was considered the work of the devil. The book “The Characters of the Inquisition” lets on to other evils of this cult. If there had been no church, the state would have gone after this bunch. Just like we went after John Wayne Gacey. Early Catholics did understand Latin, I did as a altar boy. This business of the Cathars was not changing needs of the people it was a scam. These Cathars were not a threat to the Catholic church they were merely nasty heretics. And two million did not die while flushing out these weirdos. The inquisitors were like skilled lawyers trained to get the truth out of these God awful people remember they were a secret cult. Like the woman in the film carrying around two umbilical cords, wonder were she got them? Were they the stolen remains from a sacrifice supplied by a married couple?
>>While watching this anti-Catholic PBS video I began to sell a rat. The smell lead me here and my first clue was first reading about the foundation that financed the money. The couple are big contributors of Planned Parenthood and being a pro abortion bunch that puts them at odds with the Catholic church and most Christians. So here we are today instead of the Cathars vs. the Christians we have the abortionists vs. the Christians again.
>>
>>
>>
>>Ps: The so called indura is a natural act where the body shuts down and one quits eating. My father a good Catholic was not condemned for this natural act. The commendation was the Cathars defiance for not going to the real Priest for finial blessings. And about the sinful so called Priest in the video I am sure there was no love lost when he was arrested. Did you notice that he was actually a Cathar and not real a priest. So what about all the other so called good men (self pro claimed Good Men); what do you suppose they were up to?
I never even heard such a thing. However, Hitler did and played the Lutherans for awhile before they figured him out.
Oh! I can already hear your reply. No his mother was Catholic but his father was Episcopalian. It is most likely he was baptized in his fathers church. There are no records in either church. He did sing in the catholic choir at age 13 and 14 but after that he never practiced the any Christian teachings.
Ahh! Revisionism, once again, raises it's ugly head.
But this comes from the Vatican’s own archives! Shame on you! ..../s
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.