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.
oh i’m not hurt. when someone says the NT Church was a “torah keeping hewbrew sect”, makes me wonder if you ever read the Pauline Epistles?
My apologies for the comment on humor—I had somehow thought that 350 was yours, and it was not. My bad.
As your post 372 is a response to 334, and shows agreement with 334, I would assume that you read 334. My 373, to which you respond in 433, asks you to consider 346.
I errored in stating that you claimed to have read the posts that you responded to, but it might be reasonably infered from the fact that you were responding that you had read them, and given that you claim in 433 that your response is learned, that you stand by your original conclusion in 372.
The analysis in 346 destroyed the argument put forth in 334. No rebuttal offered, and frankly, no rebuttal possible.
If 334 is your idea of reality, your term in 372, your reality needs to undergo examination. That said, my apologies for confusing 372 with 350.
How closely people adhere to the truth might also be a consideration. You, along with one other, posted agreement with post 334 (your post 350). Post 346, which I called to your attention in 358, destroys what you affirmed to be true. If you can’t be depended upon to sniff out comparatively accessible historical truth, how can you be depended upon to lead people when it comes to walking by faith, not by sight. Back up 334 or quit pontificating.
ph
No problemo. my comment was on this, and nothing more:
What is the world coming to when you cannot trust the Vatican?
Hence my reply: Reality.
Sorry, but I’m not about to follow your confused numbers game. Link to a post and I’ll discuss it.
I’m not much on computer skills, but I think this link encapsulates the three relevant posts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2650932/replies?c=334
Sure... every one. You mean Paul, who observed the Sabbath, was a Pharisee of the highest order, who was always observant to Torah, who made allowance to attend Passover at Jerusalem, and who very late, participated in a Nazirite vow? That Paul?
There is no indication that he was ever anything but an observant Hebrew, just like all the Apostles, and just like our Lord.
If what he says does not align with what he does, then the problem is in the interpretation - Because what He does is plain to see.
Rome is great on issuing massive pronouncements.
Rome is pathetically inept when it comes to actually doing something correct.
Pacelli stood by while Jews were deported and slaughtered in exchange for protection of RC schools and churches. He handed Germany over to the National Socialists. He kept his mouth shut when he should have spoken up.
And a smug Christmas greeting does not constitute a clear denunciation of Nazi atrocities.
Hitler was born and raised a Roman Catholic. He was never excommunicated. He never left the church.
Try again. Post 334 was defending the position that the Vatican had bound itself to a treaty in 1871 and was receiving sovereignty from Italy in exchange for lauding Mussolini. The issues under discussion are the Italian law of 1871, the agreement of 1929, and Vatican Sovereignty. They do indirectly influence the discussion of the issues that you raise in your “response” but all the issues that you raise post-date what is under disussion.
The Hitler angle has been amptly dealt with on this thread—but you butted into a discussion on Papal sovereignty from 1871-1929. Leo XIII and his three successors, far from being inept, were brilliant. Rome did not receive sovereignty from Mussolini, an assertion that started this line or argument, because Rome had been careful never to cede sovereignty.
So, read post 334, which you praised in post 350, read post 346 with links so that you will get an idea of what is being discussed, and then defend what you have praised. I trust that the recent link will aid you in navigating these three posts. My computer skills aren’t all that they might be.
lol. Thanks, but I’ll pass on your endless affidavits as to Rome’s “brilliance.”
You have yet to answer any of the objections raised against Pacelli.
As usual, in absence of any defense, the subject is changed, deflected, lost in a garble of inconsequential nit-picking.
334 was about Pius XI. You are the one who raised Pacelli changing the subject.
And I am sure, since you are so against the tactic of changing the subject, that you will go back and demonstrate from the actual 1929 agreement which is linked in post 334 that Rome was receiving back sovereignty that it had surrendered in 1871. That was the disputed point that 334 addressed to your satisfaction, but not to mine.
You seem to be the only person interested in Rome’s sovereignty or the loss of it.
Regardless, that doesn’t change the fact Pacelli handed over Germany to Hitler by disbanding his only opposition, the Catholic Center Party, and doing so knowing full well of Hitler’s intentions towards the Jews.
Your method is typical - missing the forest for the tree. Or in this case, for the twig.
You seem to be the only person interested in Rome’s sovereignty or the loss of it.
In 1933 Pacelli knew full well of Hitler’s intentions toward the Jews, controlled the only possible oposition to Hitler, and so had the power to hand Germany over to Hitler? Was everyone else stupid or were they just powerless, or is the Pope superman? As early as 1933 all the non-Catholics had caved, leaving only the Pope to stop Hitler, and he failed. Perhaps yoit may be agued that all evil is the fault of the Pope because you believe that he has the power to stop all evil and doesn’t exercise it. Rather than saying “the devil made me do it” just say “the Pope didn’t stop me from doing it.”
Still, this is a distraction from Pius XI—did the Vatican accept sovereignty from Mussolini or did Mussolini recognize what was officially granted by Charlemagne, effectively possessed since the time of Gregory the Great (590), and never surrendered?
It’s not Bush’s fault—it’s the Pope’s fault for not stopping Bush.
This is typical. It’s a game.
Well, maybe those who treat it as a game rather than an honest pursuit of truth will eventually go home if they are forced to stare at a loosing position long enough, or have the humility to admit that they were wrong on an issue and are not infallible. One can fantasize.
Maybe, but forget the humility part.
Unlike Rome which, through various deflections and tangents brought on by RC apologists, STILL has yet to admit any wrong-doing.
Rome's theology.
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.