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.
I am like the diner (of your imagination---you are making it personal) who only reads the menu?
You know this---how?
Please, don't personalize the discussion. You don't know me at all, and likely would be quite surprised if you did know.
Otherwise, my point stands, at least in that you have in no way refuted it. To the contrary, all which you have written back to me, confirms it.
They hold the threat of excommunication, and along with it the threat of being barred communion, which can be reasonably inferred, if not is outright taught, is tantamount to complete, hopeless separation from Christ (mealy-mouthed explanatory escape clauses, notwithstanding).
I can tell you, on a personal level (since you seem to insist on making it personal) that the Spirit of the Lord can be found to be present, outside of the narrow confines of a certain group's theological practice. Even --- at or during a rite of "communion".
I cannot help but to think that this palpable presence of the Lord during such rite, may have lead to all the gilded explanation which grew up surrounding such, many years after the earthly lives of the original apostles had ended. For the original apostles themselves left us no (other-than biblical) record or "extra" explanation, stipulating the spiritual particulars of the rite, much less such extensive wordiness as in later centuries grew up surrounding it.
Then you are obviously not paying attention or attempting to set an example.
Now there we have an argument that has spanned the decades. Catholic sources will deny it to a man, but on the other hand, there is the Concordat and numerous actions by and on behalf of the Church with the typical art of speaking out of both sides of the mouth depending upon the audience - a device which the Vatican as perfected to the satisfaction of the faithful, but no one else.
The hour is late, almost 5:30 here so I will call it a day.
bkyaycee:
He was speaking as the Pope and head of state and spoke imprudently when dealing with French King Philip IV. He was involved in trying to state the Pope had authority the Church and is affairs and if the secular authorities would not concede to the CHurch what is its domain, the Pope could render a spiritual sentence [excommunication] and as a secular leader of the Papal states, ally himself with those Kings who wanted to protect the Pope’s right to appoint Bishops, to let Bishops of a country go to Rome to meet with the Pope [the French Kings would not allow that] and use a secular solution [i.e. milatary action] against the tover all other authorities even in secular affairs and thus the Pope was the authority to judge over Kings.
The issue of the last statement dealing with salvation in today’s world implies that only those who are Catholic will be saved. That is a problem today given Christianity has fragmented into Catholic, Eastern ORthodox and Protestant, which has fragmented exponentially.
At the time, there were no Protestants so in writing this to Catholic Kings, he was reminding them nature of his office and the authority the Pope Had in the spiritual realm
Pope Boniface VII had already clearly stated earlier that the Pope did not have any temporal authority outside of the papal states so he was not challening Philip IV’s rule over secular affairs, and in the context of the times, I don’t think his statement can be seen as dealing with the question of the salvation of those who were not practicing Catholics.
The language is problematic and imprudent no doubt but it was directed at Philip IV who was in open conflict with the Pope on how CHurch revenues were handled and his treatment of Papal legates [he arrested one] and there was fear that Philip IV would lead a rebellion against the Church as he has stated that those who had opposed him and supported the Pope in his dispute were his personal enemies.
The Pope was not speaking of any doctrinal question but rather who had spiritual authority over the Church in France, was it the King or the Pope. His language was problematic no doubt and in the context of a more divided Christianity, is subject to interpretations that are not in the context in which the original Bull was issued.
FYI, read up on Philip IV and his disptute with Pope Boniface VII and I think the context of that Bull, even with the problematic language, becomes much clearer.
I don’t know what the INSTITUTIONAL
explanation would be . . .
Functionally as a sociologist/psychologist looking in from the outside . . .
I’d say it functions as yet another emphasis on
SALVATION BY WORKS
as well as yet another emphasis on
OBEDIENCE TO THE HIERARCHY first and foremost AND MAYBE to God later, as a kind of also-ran after-thought.
I’m sure gobs of RC’s will rush to correct me and you can get the kosher explanation then.
Seems to me like many hours of your time would be well spent, then
getting your cohorts and co-religionists
TO STOP THEIR IDOLATROUS, BLASPHEMOUS WORSHIP OF MARY.
Just seeing as much of it as we see on FR is outrageously nauseating.
yorkie:
There is no such thing as say 20 hail Mary’s and your sins are forgiven. The rite of of the Confession cleary states it is God who forgives.
Saying 10 Hail Mary’s is rooted in doing penance, which is part of the sacrament yes but saying those 10 hail Mary’s does not in and of itself mean your sins are forgiven.
Yes, various RCs seek to demonstrate who can wax most poetic about Mary. I may have seen this book before, and it may or may not be a decent devotional aid, but it is not a significant enough work to spend time on. It would be like me going to a random protestant Church, picking up a bulletin (assuming protestants have bulletins—maybe they are another invention of man or a rejected apostolic tradition:) and arguing with an insert as if all protestants held the position of the insert.
You state that the hierarchy falls all over itself—and that is true in a way—but the hierarchy falls all over itself while making sure that the statements are not merely poetry focusing on one or two things in isolation, but have proper qualification and a context in which things ought to be read. Leo XIII’s boatload of encyclicals is a perfect case. A quick count puts the total at 10, which is about eight or nine more than he wrote on any other topic. (Subjects are listed next to the title at the link below).
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/index.htm
Given the extensive time you seem to have devoted to the subject, I would think that you ought to be a bit better informed and go to primary sources. If a Pope has said that we ought to give Mary the same honour that we give God the Father, I’m interested in knowing. I’ve read many RC works, and haven’t come across such a statement—but I focus mainly on works by Popes and saints.
BTW—why are you reading Enoch? It is on my own to do list, but not on the level that it is likely to get done.
google st. ignatius. he was a bishop of Antioch and was personally taught by the Apostle John. There were unbelievers in his day as well called the Gnostics. St. Ignatius wrote around the year 100ad, that the Gnostics did not take “communion”, since they denied it was the Body of Christ. Now, this man was personally taught by St John, here you are 1,900 years later and you will deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? St. Ignatius was martyred in the Roman Coliseum for his Faith. But not only St. Ignatius taught this, ALL the Church Fathers believed it and more importantly of course, Jesus said it. “This is My Body” Unless your Bible says “This REPRESENTS My Body”.
Yes indeed. That one Church, headed by Jesus Christ, remains firmly planted in Eastern Orthodox Churches, Protestant Churches, and even some....in Roman Churches....
Here is a link to the Treaty with all the Articles and the financial attachments.
http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/treaty.htm
Now you tell me that Vatican reneged on the agreement. When it was signed by PIETRO CARD. GASPARRI under the auspices of the Holy Trinity.
What is the world coming to when you cannot trust the Vatican?
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
Luke 1:28 "And coming to her, he said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you."
The Greek kecharitomene means favored by grace, graced. Its tense suggests a permanent state of being "highly favored," thus full of grace. Charity, the divine love within us, comes from the same root. God is infinite Goodness, infinite Love. Mary is perfect created goodness, filled to the limit of her finite being with grace or charity.
Blessed art thou among women
Luke 1:41-42a "When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women..."
Luke 1:48 "For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed."
Among all women is a way to say the highest/greatest etc. of a group in Semitic languages (these words would likely have been spoken in Aramaic). Mary is being called the greatest of all women, greater than Ruth, greater than Sarah, greater than EVE! Since Eve was created immaculate (without original sin), Mary must have been conceived immaculate. And, although Eve fell into sin by her own free will, Mary must have corresponded to God's grace and remained sinless. She could not otherwise be greater than Eve. Thus, as the Fathers of the Church unanimously assert, Mary is the New Eve who restores womanhood to God's original intention and cooperates with the New Adam, her Son, for the Redemption of the world.
Blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus
Luke 1:42b "and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Jesus is Mary's fruit. Good fruit does not come from anything but a good tree (Mt. 7:17-18)! The all-holy Son of God could not be the fruit of any other tree than the Immaculate Virgin.
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Luke 1:43 "And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Kyrios is the Greek word used by the Jews in the Septuagint Bible (Greek translation) for Yhwh, the Divine Name of God. In her greeting of Mary, Elizabeth is saying: "How is it that the mother of my God should come to me." Against the heresies of the 4th and 5th centuries which tried to split the Person of Jesus into two, divine and human, denying one or the other, the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD proclaimed Mary Theotokos (God-bearer, i.e. mother of God). Jesus is a single Person, a Divine Person, the 2nd Person of the Most Holy Trinity. To be mother of the Person Jesus is to be mother of a Person who is God. Mary's title protects this truth against errors which emphasize or deny, either the divinity or humanity of the Lord.
Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Luke 2:35 "...and you yourself a sword will pierce so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."
John 2:5 "His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you."
Mary sees a need and appeals to Her Son to satisfy it. He does. We turn to Mary to ask her to intercede with her Son in our daily spiritual and material needs, but especially at the hour of our death. At that moment our salvation hangs in the balance as the devil makes his final foray to deter us from the path to
what is your opinion of John 17? Are we all one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?
Please back up that statement, for me, CTrent.
Thanks
yorkie:
I think Quix in all caps stated something about idolatry and worship of Mary. Catholics, and for that Matter, Eastern Orthodox, both “honor Mary”. So lets start with One Doctrine which Catholics call the Assumption of Mary and the Eastern Orthodox call the Dormition of Mary. I will say up front the post is someone long but since you asked, I thought I would provide.
The early orthodox CHurch Fathers clearly reflected on Mary’s unique role in salvation history. For example, The OT calls Eve the Mother of the Living (Gen 3:20). However, we also know that threw Adam and her sin, death came to all her descendants. In the second century, Church Fathers began to see that the Eve-Mary parallel which suggests that Mary and a role in salvation history in relation to Christ, just has Eve had a role in the fall of the human race in relation to Adam. St. Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho is the first to actually propose the Doctrine of Mary as the New Eve. Fr. Luigi Lamberto in his work Mary and the Fathers of the Church, published by Ignatius Press notes that Justin wanted to show how the Lord had decided to accomplish the salvation of man by following the same procedure by which sin had been committed and caused the downfall of man (p. 47). He points out that the Eve-Mary parallel had its foundation in the Pauline doctrine of Christ as the second Adam (1 Cor 15: 21-22). St. Justin Martyr writes
“The Son of God became man through a Virgin, so that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way it begun. For Eve, who was virgin and undefiled, gave birth to disobedience and death after listening to the serpent’s words. But the Virgin Mary conceived faith and joy; for what the Angel Gabriel brought her the glad tidings that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, so that the Holy One born of her would be the Son of God, she answered, ‘Let it be done to me according to your word’ (Lk 1:38). Thus was born of her the Child about whom so many Scriptures speak, as we have shown. Through him, God crushed the serpent along with those angels and men who had become like the serpent.” (Dialogue with Trypho 100)
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, the great defender of orthodoxy against the Gnostic Heretics of the 2nd century, further develops the idea of Mary as the New Eve, which St. Justin Martyr began to develop in 155. Fr. Matero notes that St. Irenaeus first recapitulated salvation history in Christ by appealing back to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans 5: 12, where it states the whole human race fell into sin because of the man Adam, and then it was necessary that God’s son should become man and thus become the foundation of a new humanity. He then provides the following two quotes from Irenaeus, 1) that recapitulates Christ as the new Adam and 2) that recapitulates Mary as the new Eve.
(1) Irenaeus writes “When the Son of God took flesh and became man; he recapitulated in himself the long history of men, procuring for us the reward of salvation, so that in Christ Jesus we might recover what we had lost in Adam, namely, the image and likeness of God. For since it was not possible for man, once wounded and broken by disobedience, to be refashioned and to obtain the victor’s palm, and since it was equally impossible for him to receive salvation, as he had fallen under the power of sin, the Son of God accomplished both of those tasks. He God’s Word, came down from the Father and became flesh; he abased himself even unto death and brought the economy of our salvation to its completion.” (Against Heresies 3, 18)
(2) After recapitulating Christ as the new Adam, Irenaeus writes “Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin….By disobeying, she became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way, Mary, though she also had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race…The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience. What Eve bound through her unbelief, Mary loosened by faith.” (Against Heresies 3: 22)
St. Irenaeus further writes and points out that only the Gnostic Heretics ignore God’s economy of salvation, in which Mary had a unique role in playing since she gave birth to Christ, the word made flesh. Irenaeus writes:
“Eve was seduced by the word of the [fallen] angel and transgressed God’ s word, so that she fled from him. In the same way, [Mary] was evangelized by the word of an angel and obeyed God’s word, so that she carried him [within her]. And while the former was seduced into disobeying God, the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And just has the human race was bound to death because of a virgin, so it was set free from death by a Virgin, since the disobedience of one virgin was counterbalanced by the Virgin’s obedience.
If then, the first-made man’s sin was mended by the right conduct of the firstborn Son [of God], and if the serpent’s cunning was bested by the simplicity of the dove [Mary], and if the chains that held us bound to death have been broken, then the heretics are fools; they are ignorant of God’s economy, and they are unaware of his economy for [the salvation of’ man.’ (Against Heresies 5: 19)
Finally, St. Irenaeus develops the recapitulation theme to its fulfillment when he writes:
“Adam had to be recapitulated in Christ, so that death might be swallowed up in immortality, and Eve [had to be recapitulated] in Mary, so that the Virgin, having become another virgin’s advocate, might destroy and abolish one virgin’s disobedience by the obedience of another virgin.” (Proof of Apostolic Preaching 33)
In summary, there was a well developed doctrine of Mary’s unique role in salvation history way before the New Testament Canon was settled in the 4th century Church Councils at Hippo and Carthage, 393 and 397, respectively. The second century testimony of two of the greatest orthodox Church Fathers, Justin and Irenaeus support the position that Mary was chosen by God to be the means through which the word became flesh and made his dwelling among us (c.f. John 1:14). The Church Fathers and the Apostolic Tradition viewed Mary in the role that honors her as early as the late 1st and clearly 2nd century. Christ became incarnate of the Virgin Mary. So, it is correct to say that she played a unique role in salvation history.
2) A second point of contention with folks like Quix and other “sola Ego” Protestants is the title honoring Mary as the “Mother of God”
Throughout the early history of the Church, orthodox Theologians constantly had to battle against false doctrines about Christ. In the 2nd century, the heresy of Gnosticism spread which in addition to being dualistic, it argued that God would not become Incarnate as “matter was evil” and thus Christ could not have had a human body. Of course, the Catholic Church rejected this Doctrine as evidenced by the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the various Churches he wrote to [Rome, Ephesians, Smyrnaeans, ca 107 AD], Marcion being excommunicated by the Church of Rome in 144 AD, and the writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyons against the Gnostics [170AD]. In the early 3rd century, a heresy called “Modalism” started which argued that God is One, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just different modes of the same Individual. This understanding stressed the Oneness of God to the exclusion of the Trinity. This is heretical and of course the other extreme is to emphasize the Trinity of Persons to an extreme as to destroy God’s Unity [the other extreme of unorthodox Trinitarian Doctrine]. So, when Modalism was taught by Sabellius, he was excommunicated by Pope Callistus [217-222] and thus Modalism was rejected as a heresy by the Church of Rome.
Of course, all this time the Church is keeping orthodox Doctrine and rejecting heretical Doctrines, and as of yet, the Church had “not” formally defined what the New Testament Canon was, which would not occur until the late 4th century. So again, as Fr. Richard Hogan puts it in his book Dissent From the Creed, “Two essential points should always be kept in mind. One cannot emphasize the oneness of God to the exclusion of the Trinity, and one cannot put so much weight on the Trinity of Persons that the unity of the Godhead is destroyed” (p.57).
With Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which contrary to popular opinion, did not make Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, it only stated that the Roman state would no longer as official state policy persecute the Church. With this the Church was free to openly have theological discussion. In 318 AD, a priest named Arius, who was from Alexandria, but trained in Antioch, began preaching [back in Alexandria] , based on his interpretation of Proverbs 8: 22-31 [Discourse on Wisdom] that the Logos in John 1 did not exist from eternity. Arius argued that God has not always been a Father, later He became So. Arius was told be his Bishop not to preach this, he did not obey and was excommunicated and thus Arius’s supporters in Antioch did not support the Church of Alexandria’s excommunication of Arius and the Church imploded. In response, the Council of Nicea [325 AD] was called and rejected Arius and his Doctrine and stated that Christ is “one in being with the Father”, which is the translation of the Greek philosophical term “homoousios”, which was translated into Latin as consubstantialem and in understanding of the Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed, the Three Persons of the Trinity are one in being with the others or another way the Three Persons are the Same Substance [Divine]. Today, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians still hold to the Nicene Creed can see the wonderfully orthodox Doctrine expressed by the words “We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ…the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father…one in being with the Father…through Him all things were made.”
Next, while the Council of Nicea had formally defined the relation of the Christ the Son to the Father, it had not defined the relationship between the Holy Sprit and the Son and the Father. Thus, another controversy arose and the Council of Constantinople (381 AD) addressed this question by adding to the phrase “We believe in the Holy Spirit”, which was all the Nicene Creed stated in its original 325 AD form, the following text “the Lord giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and Son is worshiped and Glorified.” Thus, in using the title of “Lord” [remember that], the Council was clearly teaching that the Holy Spirit was Divine and with the term “giver of Life”, the Holy Spirit linked with the act of Creation and finally, the text “worshiped and Glorified” can only mean that the Holy Spirit is worshiped in the same manner as the Father and the Son. Thus, by 381 AD, the Church had formally and clearly defined the Holy Trinity. Also, note that the New Testament Canon as of yet had not been formally defined as that would not take place until the Decisions of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397 AD) which codified the New Testament., and sent their canons for approval from Rome.
Now, while the Church had rejected Gnosticism, Modalism, Arianism, etc, the problem of Christ relationship of His Divinity to His Humanity still was being discussed. Clearly, the early definitions had stressed both Christ Divinity and humanity, but the Church still did not have a theological terminology to define the Divine and human in an unbreakable bond in the Person of Christ. During the period from 400 AD to 430 AD, one theological opinion discussed by Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople was whether the Blessed Virgin Mary could be called “Mother of God” but rather only the “Mother of Christ” since saying Mary was the “Mother of God” implies that Divine Nature was born.
Thus, Nestorius’s doctrine was nothing short of Dualism as it destroyed the Unity of Christ. Thus, if God was not born, then God did not die on the Cross and we are “not redeemed”. St. Cyril of Alexandria, the Bishop there, rejected Nestorius’s doctrine and sent a letter to the Bishop of Rome [Celestine I] and the Pope agreed with Cyril and commanded that Nestorius recant his teaching that Mary “was not the Mother of God”. Of course, nothing is ever this easy and the Council of Ephesus [431 AD] was called.. Nestorius was deposed as Bishop of Constantinople and his “heresy was rejected” and the Council said that “in Christ there are Two Natures in union without confusion”. So, if the Trinity is Three distinct Divine Persons, yet One God, then the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was born of Mary, and that “One Person” is Christ Jesus and thus if a Divine Person was born of Mary, Mary then is correctly called “Theotokos: The Mother of God” because if she is not, then God was not born and did not die. Any other understanding is “heretical”. For example, if only the Human Person of Christ is born, then where did is Divinity come from, was he “adopted” and thus became Divine later after his birth, no, no, no, that would make Christ less than fully God. Let’s take another one, if only the Human person of Christ was Born, but the Divine Person was not. Hmmmm, does not work, because then Christ is Two Persons and that would conflict with the Holy Trinity, which is Three Distinct Divine Persons, and further Two Persons can’t be born. So, the orthodox understanding of Christ is he is a One Divine Person, who has two distinct natures, One Divine and One Human, both united in the Person of Christ, without confusion and both operating to the fullness within that same One Person. Thus, Mary is correctly called the “Mother of God”, which is hinted at in Sacred Scripture in Luke 1:43 when Elizabeth refers to Mary as the “Mother of my Lord”. Thus, the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD provided the orthodox interpretation of Luke 1:43 which was consistent with the orthodox Doctrine of Christ as a Divine Person with both a human and Divine Nature, which thus also was consistent with an orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation, i.e. that the eternal Word became flesh, and one that is consistent with the formal Definition of the Doctrine of the Trinity [as Defined at the Council of Nicea 325 AD and Constantinople in 381AD] and expressed in the Nicene Creed.
So in summary, I have tried to clearly lay out why the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church clearly “Honor Mary” and explain the dogmas of the Assumption/Dormition to use Orthodox Terminology and Mary as Theotokos or Mother of God.
Respectfully submitted and hope I provided a clear back up of my statement “Your wrong in my statements”
But, my question is........... where in Scripture, does it direct us to pray to anyone other than our Lord? (Especially for absolution of our sins - such as being reqired to say the "Hail Mary" and the "Lord's Prayer" a number of times - to be forgiven for our sins.)
I'm not being combative in any way - I am seriously curious.
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.