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.
Baloney.
That’s like the right hand blaming the left, and any honest religion would admit that.
Thankfully, the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is to admit it was wrong.
ohhhh,, so the inquisition was done by a civil government, and the church was deeply opposed, and NEVER interfered in civil government. Got it,,, (snicker.)
Forced conversions were long part of the Roman Catholic Church.
Heck, you were kidnapping, baptising, and brainwashing Jewish children to hate their parents until 100 years ago.
Look what Santa brought you, more anti-catholic propaganda right there in the stocking right next to the lump of coal.
Were anyone to substitute the word Catholic for Jew they would have been banned long ago and their entire posting history would have been scrubbed. Just because some continue to exploit loop holes in the forum rules and the sympathies of the moderators doesn't give them a free pass in the eyes of God or real Christians.
I think the greatest contribution ML made to the Roman church was to keep starting Sunday mass later and later. It went from sunrise to 11:00 a.m. because ML would hang out all night at the taverns and his monster hangovers wouldn’t let him out of the bed till mid-morning to celebrate mass for the congregants
Hence 10:00-11:00 am service on Sunday, at the First Baptist Church and her sister churches.
:) Who would have thought stout ale could bless so many :)
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
Note that the congregants learned directly from St Paul of their Christian faith... not from reading a not-yet-recorded New Testament. See 2 Thess 3:6 ("Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.").
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Yes. Scripture is the beginning of knowledge of the Lord since the whole of the Old Testament proclaims Christ if you realize it. However, as the Christian Church discovered, there is more to proclaim in the age of the Church and you can't stop there.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Yes again... but again, Scripture at the time was the Old Testament. You could infer than St Paul knew he was writing Scripture... but did his readers? Did he instruct them anywhere to keep and memorize his words as Holy Scripture? No. The Church recognized Our Lord's Voice in St Paul's words and included them in the Canon of Scripture. By what authority you might ask? By St Paul's... "... the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." - 1 Tim 3:6.
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Amen.
2 Peter 1:19-21. Gotta admit... you gave me a new one here. You're the first to use this as a Sola Scriptura proof-text with me.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Funny. This is actually a fairly strong condemnation of much of Protestant theology. The Scriptures are best taught by the Church, not privately interpreted.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Sorry. Still don't see Sola Scriptura in these words. That the Bible is the Word of God written and inerrant is beyond debate. It's highly debatable that you can twist its words enough to make your point with these proof-texts.
According to G.K. Chesterton, heresy isn't simply a falsehood... it's elevating one part of the truth to being all of the truth. My Protestant friends have elevated the Bible (which itself proclaims to be not-all-inclusive [John 21:25]) to being the pillar and ground of the truth. Yet the Bible proclaims the Church to be the pillar and ground of the truth [1 Tim 3:6]. The Church has taught us all that the Scriptures are inerrant and of God and worthy of study... within Her teaching and understanding. Proclaiming Bible truth outside of Church teaching is unbiblical and has proven through Protestant experience to lead to schism, not unity.
May God bless you with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Which of the three alones is the one that I alone need, or is it pick any one of the three?
_____________________________________________________________
They’re tied together.
God’s Word through Scripture teaches us that by His Grace we are saved through Faith in Him.
Ephesians 2:1-10 sums it up.
That enclyclical did nothing to curtail Hitler. All it did was to cushion the Roman Catholic schools and churches in Italy.
And a declared excommunication would have had no more positive impacts—the point had already been made.
Of course, Pacelli had read Mein Kampf—how else would he had counselled Pius XI to write the encyclical to which I linked in post 50—but I don’t suppose you read that either.
Amen!!!
Here we stand, we can do nothing else.
Beg pardon? Post 25?
As to the “document of equal weight” — so? I don’t quite see the connection; was Hitler, or was he not, excommunicated? I think that was the issue that was forwarded.
Hoss
“I wouldn’t doubt it. I’ll have to dig up that post before it ages too much and show it to you. Bizarre.”
There was one established poster arguing that a theocracy — -— can’t recall if it was Christian or Roman Catholic -— had to be established in the USA to save the USA.
Many posters were in support.
Many conservatives are just as bad of statists as liberals -— but THEIR brand of state.
With ignorance so blatant, it's amazing you expect to be taken seriously here. Do some research on Copernicus then come back and report to the class. While you're gone, you may want to check into the Church's history of support for all of the sciences...
If one could separate the Father from the Son, and both from the Holy Spirit, then one would know which 'alone' to rely upon.
The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
I've read plenty of RC propaganda. The fact is Pacelli enabled Hitler and the Nazis to destroy the Jews by dismantling the final opposition to Hitler in Germany.
With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?
The majority of Hitler's coterie were practicing Roman Catholics.
And thus, none of them has been excommunicated.
For some, the only good link is an anti-Catholic link. Reference post #40 which purports David Kertzer, a pro-abortion and atheistic Communist as an authoritative source simply because he blames the Catholic Church for modern antisemitism.
Note that that same poster did not include the three antisemitic manifestos authored by Luther. Neither does it mention Calvin's Ad Quaelstiones et Objecta Juaei Cuiusdam Responsio, in which he states; "Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone."
Anti-Catholicism is the incense pot from which the stench of lies emerges to permeate the Religion Forum.
And a “real Christian is?” a Catholic?
If by "Church" you mean "Catholic church" you are in error.
Your attention is directed to the Barmen Declaration.
I have no doubt that voluntary protestant unions could be eloquent and had individuals making extremely heroic acts, but I do not think they could cause a public humiliation of this magnitude.
History is what it is. Apologizing for the actions of a few evil men in Church history is misguided, and doesn’t do the work of Jesus. Can you point out where the papacy strongly opposed the inquisitions, or burning of translators? What leads you to think Jesus would approve of those acts of men?
“Henry VII and Cranmer, who enforced Protestant theology at the point of the headsman’s axe”
Do you mean Henry VIII?
Henry VIII was originally very anti-Protestant -— e.g., having Tynsdale tried and eventually burned at the stake.
I was fascinated with Henry VIII for a time.
I pretty much came to the conclusion he was an asshole and attached his cart to an pre-existing religious dispute that had little or nothing to do with him because he could use political force to bend it to his will.
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.