None of those guys taught heresy or denied any of what had been taught as Truth ever since the Apostles were alive and teaching those who would fill their shoes, but Luther did because he chose to follow Eve rather than Jesus Christ. No Pope ever preached that following Eve was the same as following Jesus Christ, but Luther did and those who follow in his footsteps likewise preach that following Even and worshiping their own, Most High and Holy Self is the same as following Jesus Christ. Only people who worship their Self would throw out part of the Bible and then have the gall to mock Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, by claiming to believe in Scripture as His Word.
Luther’s didn’t bother with a few fingers, they dug up, hanged, drew, and quartered Cromwell who not so long before they had hailed as a great man of God. When they were done mutilating the corpse, not just setting it in a chair, they kept his head on a post for quite some time. Of course, Marty preferred encouraging the nobility to slaughter peasants who were following Luther’s own writings to messing with corpses.
Nepotism? Pffft. Mere nepotism is a faint shadow of rule by nobility who pass their titles on in their family for generations and Marty loved the nobility. He loved them so much he said that each noble should dictate what everyone in duchy or fiefdom would believe and that all religion should be subject to control by the State.
Spending 1/7 or even ½ of the reserves others have built up pales by comparison to the outright theft of lands and buildings the Church had owned, built and improved for centuries. But, Luther saw nothing wrong with the nobles stealing whatever they wanted to enrich their families and strengthen their control over the ignorant peasents he damned for interpreting Scripture for themselves instead of listening to him. Anyone who was a little concerned over such theft could just ask Marty if it’s Ok and Marty assured them it was. After all, there was none of that garbage about the Ten Commandments for Marty. Anything you thought might be a sin, Marty could excuse. Like stating that husbands or wives to could fornicate whenever they liked with whoever they liked if their spouse didn’t please them sexually.
Yeah, Marty exceeded all those guys by a long shot. So much so that good old Adolph Hitler praised him as a farsighted and wise German for knowing how evil the Jooooooz were.
Those Popes were corrupt sinners, but they were all pikers compared to good old heretic and liar Marty.
And compared to 7/8ths of the people who have followed in Marty's footsteps by throwing out part of the Bible.
Oh, he way, way, surpassed any of those guys. None of then threw part of the Bible in the trash can, but Luther did because he couldn’t find any way around free will being clearly spelled out in Sirach, Purgatory being laid out clearly in Maccabees, and a half dozen other things he couldn't even twist his way out of without just throwing them out. Just like he refused to accept anything from James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation because they all very clearly contradict the Gospel of Martin Luther even though they are without a doubt part of what Christ and the Apostles taught.
Here is a list of some Church leaders throughout history who rejected part or all of the deuterocanonical/Apocrypha books:
•Origen, a second-century theologian, rejected the Apocrypha, listing the canon to be 22 books (equivalent to the Jewish and Protestant canon).
•Athanasius, the fourth-century bishop of Alexandria, rejected most of the Apocrypha, holding to a 22-book Old Testament canon.
•Jerome, who was commissioned by the Church in the fifth century to translate the Scriptures into Latin, produced the Latin Vulgate, which was the Church-approved translation for over a thousand years. He did not accept the Apocrypha but adhered to a Jewish canon of 22 books.
•Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, rejected the book of 1 Maccabees.
•The Venerable Bede, historian and doctor of the Church, in his commentary on Revelation, listed the Old Testament books to be 24 in number (the same as the Jewish and Protestant canon).
•Ambrose of Autpert, a ninth-century theologian, rejected all or part of the Apocrypha.
•Hugh of St. Victor, a leading theologian of the twelfth century had problems with it.
•John of Salisbury, one of the leading scholars of the twelfth century who became the Bishop of Chartres also rejected all or part of it.
•Rupert of Deutz, an early twelfth century theologian rejected it. •Hugh of St. Cher (Hugo Cardinalis), a Dominican cardinal of the thirteenth century rejected it.
•Nicholas of Lyra, one of the most highly regarded and influential theologians of the Middle Ages, surpassing even Thomas Aquinas in authority as a biblical commentator, rejected it.
•William of Ockham, in his Dialogues, wrote that the Church did not receive the books of the Apocrypha as canonical.
•Cardinal Cajetan, the opponent of Martin Luther, wrote a commentary on all the books of the Bible and even dedicated it to the Pope, saying that the Apocrypha was not canonical in the “strict sense.” Therefore, the deuterocanonical books were not included in his commentary and he fought against their canonization at Trent.
•Glossa ordinaria, the standard commentary of the late Middle Ages studied and respected by all in the Church, says that the Church did not believe the deuterocanonical books were inspired. Here is the preface: “The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them.” http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/12/why-do-i-reject-the-apocrypha/
Can you say Spanish Inquisition? BTW, Rome is not Spiritual Israel.
Hey, wasn't it Tischendorf who dug your own Catholic Sinaiticus out of a dumpster that was about to be used for fire starting by some Catholic monks??? They had no use for it but now it is one of the most famous of Catholic manuscripts, even tho it disagrees with it's sister manuscripts in over 3000 places...But hey, it's just history...
And yet we PROTESTants still have them.
It's MIRACLE; I tell ya!