Posted on 01/03/2011 10:40:41 AM PST by RnMomof7
On January 3, 1521, Pope Leo X issues the papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, which excommunicates Martin Luther from the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther, the chief catalyst of Protestantism, was a professor of biblical interpretation at the University of Wittenberg in Germany when he drew up his 95 theses condemning the Catholic Church for its corrupt practice of selling indulgences, or the forgiveness of sins. He followed up the revolutionary work with equally controversial and groundbreaking theological works, and his fiery words set off religious reformers all across Europe.
In January 1521, Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther. Three months later, Luther was called to defend his beliefs before Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms, where he was famously defiant. For his refusal to recant his writings, the emperor declared him an outlaw and a heretic. Luther was protected by powerful German princes, however, and by his death in 1546, the course of Western civilization had been significantly altered.
If we toss out Scripture alone, then what is the Church’s doctrine based on?
If you want to read the official teaching, here is a link. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.htmlChrist taught, the Church
It is based on the Deposit of Faith given Her by Christ Himself. Did you ever notice that you could fill volumes of books with one day's testimony on Capital Hill and yet we get small paragraphs of Jesus's 40 days between His Resurrection and Ascension? There was much more given to the Apostles than what was written (John 21:25). As they themselves noted in the Epistles, they handed on the traditions given them by Christ as they traveled the ancient world (2 Thess 3:6).
The Nazis mostly came out of Munich and therefore would’ve been principally of a Catholic background. Obviously, they were not “practicing” Roman Catholics because Hitler himself spoke often that the supremacy of the State had to be greater than that of the church. At best (or worst?) it can be said that the logical majority of the original Nazis (1923 vintage) were lapsed Catholics.
“And for the record, when Jews or anyone else convert to Christianity it isn’t a bad thing.”
Voluntarily. But you were kidnapping children until recently.
Maybe read up on the Kidnapping (and eventually brainwashing) of Edgardo Mortara.
http://www.davidkertzer.com/en/book/export/html/24
Your pope was directly complicit in this crime.
an antidote to the writings of the early church, luther, and others regarding the Jews can be found in a Mark Twain essay ‘ Concerning the Jews’.
Myself, the issue of Hitler being excommunicated was rendered moot by Hitler’s own words making the State supreme to faith. Hitler’s “church” was the Almighty State and any excommunication would’ve been needless as Hitler was obviously not a Catholic when this would have been an issue.
It’s like wanting to kick Obama out of a church being moot because the man doesn’t go to church at all. His prior actions made any further action by a church pointless.
Yes, I am aware of this speech—and will happily concede that some theologians of the times were knuckleheads who errored.
Now, just provide the documentation that you claim exists that demonstrates that Galileo was convicted of heresy for following Copernicus’ theories instead of Aristotle—the three key words to look for are heresy linked to either Copernicus or Aristotle.
Bet you a beer no can do—it has been twenty years, but I have been through the historical documents that were in print around the time of the 1992 speech. But if it is a documented historic fact, this should be a no-brainer for you.
“I would not believe the holy Gospels if it were not for the authority of the Holy Catholic Church.”
That is a logical fallacy. It’s akin to saying that I would not believe in the Constitution except for the authority of the United States Government. While liberals embrace this nonsense, I don’t.
Likewise, to say the the Roman Catholic Church holds a greater authority than do the words of Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, Paul, Matthew, James, David, and etc. is to, as I paraphrase 2 Timothy 3:5:
**Have a form of godliness but to deny the power thereof.**
The authority of the RCC does not ever exceed the authority of the Word.
I suppose the point is this: If actions themselves “excommunicate” one from “the church” without “the church” doing anything, how exactly IS that an excommunication?
If you are saved, then the point is moot as The Church (not RCC, but the actual Church.. those who are saved... past, present, and future cannot excommunicate you. They don’t and can’t “excommunicate” you period.
If the Roman Catholic Church does not know what you think or do, and you think or do something that “excommunicates” you... how does one know they are an excommunicant? How does the RCC know?
I’m reminded of the old saw, “if a tree falls in the forest....”
:D
Hoss
You are an absolute child! Do you research any more deeply than an excerpt on Wikipedia? Galileo was caught in a power struggle between Church factions at a time when the Church was dealing with the repercussions of Luther's rebellion. He was tried not simply because of his heliocentric views but because he claimed his findings showed Biblical errancy. The path he had chosen threatened official understandings of many foundational Church doctrines so he was tried and condemned as a heretic. He couldn't find a way out that didn't involve crippling Christianity either.
A modern understanding of the situation shows that it was a matter of perspective and the condemnation was too reactionary. For that, the Church has apologized.
At least we may credit Erasmus for his sense of humor, something that was in slightly rare supply among the various antagonists. His attitude was basically eirenic in a belligerent era.
He was truly distressed at the nastiness that developed on both sides. Yes, he was a friend of Luther and Zwingli, Colet, and IIRC Melanchthon. But he was saddened both by the attacks on his friends, and the tone of their counterattacks. He tried to stay at arms' length, only to be turned on for his efforts.
He had been shocked into realising that the Holy Father in Rome was in fact an agent of Antichrist. How could the Pope be anything else, demanded Luther, when he ordered silence on a loyal son of the Church who had rediscovered the most important truth about the human condition?
If 'he' refers here to Erasmus, this claim about his 'realization' is tendentious. Not so, however, if the author meant Luther.
The Nazis mostly came out of Munich and therefore would’ve been principally of a Catholic background. Obviously, they were not “practicing” Roman Catholics because Hitler himself spoke often that the supremacy of the State had to be greater than that of the church. At best (or worst?) it can be said that the logical majority of the original Nazis (1923 vintage) were lapsed Catholics.
In the case of Hitler I’ll posit that the RCC ‘knew’ he’d effectively left the church when he started arresting and killing priests. Hitler wasn’t exactly subtle, you know.
Nothing at least on that day for Luther to repent from. Stuff later on I would bet he did, since he realized every day was a struggle against “the old man” and every day one needed to ask for forgiveness.
Ok, then how about we just say that every single action of the Knesset, as the political leadership of a Jewish state from which it derives its legitimacy, are by definition the actions of Judaism itself?
So if the Knesset approves "gay marriage", why, well, so does Judaism!
If you see the problem with that, then you will see the problem I have with the Church getting the blame for what it specifically told people not to do.
And you will find me quite open and willing to discuss the morality of any action/legislation taken by the Church. What I won't do though, is further slanders against her that are manifestly, provably untrue.
That is a logical fallacy.
I believe in Christ. Christ says of the Church “he who hears you hears me,” so because I believe in Christ, I believe the Church. The Church says that the documents given in the canon (list) issued by the Church are to be believed, and so, because I believe Christ, I must believe the Church on the issue. You may disagree with my reason for believing in scripture, you may disagree with Augustine’s, but it is an accurate description of the act of belief involved, and not a fallacy.
If Pope John Paul 2 said it then I consider it to be a documented historic fact. If the man with arguably the most to lose from the concession does not dispute it then why should I?
If Pope John Paul 2 said it then I consider it to be a documented historic fact. If the man with arguably the most to lose from the concession does not dispute it then why should I?
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.