Posted on 08/07/2012 2:39:20 PM PDT by NYer
PLUS — Luther added to the Bible and then took books away from it.
You and I know that those are not deeds of a true believer in Christ and Christ’s word.
Well said. There’s a big difference.
You wrote:
“That is called repetition rather than an answer.”
He asked “how”. I answered with the “how”.
Got that right. Neither is lying, vow breaking, encouraging theft or rebellion.
He just realized that papacy was a man made institution, some good, some bad, nothing holier than any other christian believer. Probably really realized it when they threatened to arrest him if he didnt recant. Jesus didn’t arrest many people. Good thing Prince Frederick III, Elector of Saxony protected him.
It’s like math. You dont need to know 2+3=5 to know that 765 is the incorrect answer. Nothing in Christs life or words suggests the creation of a hierarchical government, living in spendor, ruling by fear, and suggesting that it is the necessary intermediary between a man and Christ.
If fact, Christ said no man comes to the father except by me. He could have said “or the pope, or a Bishop of Antioch, or an deacon, etc. But he didn’t.
Now I’m ready for you to snidely tell me that Jesus himself started the papacy by pointing to the Peter/Rock verse in the Bible. Then of next course, without a hint of irony, you’ll tell how a Christian cannot go solo scriptura.
You guys got away with *a lot* back when translating or reading the Bible was against your rules for the laity.
No honest Catholic will argue that certain practices and disciplines of the Church and certainly certain members of the clergy were not in need of reform. In the ensuing years and with the assistance of the Councils of Trent were largely rectified. The problem is that Luther went well beyond that and initiated and orchestrated an attack on key doctrines and dogmas.
His primary issue was with the authority of the Church which caused him to disregard Tradition, the Magisterium and a considerable amount of Scripture to establish himself and the sole authority. It wasn't about the sufficiency of Scripture, it was about HIS interpretation of Scripture. He never intended "every milkmaid and farmhand" to assume the ability to disagree with his interpretations.
Peace be with you.
That's no answer.
That's no answer.
Sorry but he tried. The roman church wasn’t ready to reform.
You wrote:
“Nothing in Christs life or words suggests the creation of a hierarchical government, living in spendor, ruling by fear, and suggesting that it is the necessary intermediary between a man and Christ.”
Actually everything in Christ’s life suggests (and proves) He willed and created a hierarchical Church (hierarchical literally means “rule by priests). Living in splendor is essentially irrelevant since no one who lived in it actually owned it. Also, the Church herself, willed and created by God serves His purposes no matter how sinful her members. Protestants invented the straw man of the Church as an “intermediary between a man and Christ.” In reality the Church is Christ’s bride and inseperable from Him.
“You guys got away with *a lot* back when translating or reading the Bible was against your rules for the laity.”
You’re living in a fantasy world. A dark, twisted, paranoid fantasy world.
Personally involved? He was a leader. In many ways he was THE leader. He chose what he did.
greatest heretic since lucifer.
How was Luther a heretic?
Lucifer laughs at Christians hating each other.
Don’t bother. These circular firing squads are one of the reasons I don’t come to the religion forum much any more.
It is true. The RC church forbade its people to read the Bible.
“The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: “That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary.” “
Also, Luther can hardly “stick with” a church once he is kicked out of it! As he was declared an outlaw, you know, he was essentially sentenced to death.
“His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.”
“In historical legal systems, an outlaw is declared as outside the protection of the law. In pre-modern societies, this takes the burden of active prosecution of a criminal from the authorities. Instead, the criminal is withdrawn all legal protection, so that anyone is legally empowered to persecute or kill them. Outlawry was thus one of the harshest penalties in the legal system.”
Yes, that was YOUR answer.
Which didn't answer the question put to you.
And it wasn’t really “reform” in the sense that that word is often kicked around today. Luther was really talking about restoration, a return - not some kind of progressive reform that never existed in the first place like liberals think of “reform”.
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.