Why would anyone become Catholic?

There is a hint of it in Genesis 49:29....

“And when Jacob made an end of charging his sons, he gathered up his feet unto the bed, and expired, and was gathered to his people.”

If we take that to mean the souls who had gone before, (which I believe), then it only makes sense to pray that that reunion be as wonderful as God can make it.

At least to me.

WHY would we need to pray that the reunion is as wonderful as God can make it?

Couldn’t GOD come up with the idea all on His own?

Nope! I respect our moderators too much to argue or question their judgment regarding the warnings they issue. My question to you still stands unanswered, though.

Luther had a good teacher: Rome.

Luther kind of started the slide from the truth of Catholicism down to the error of protestantism

I find it ironic how some who purport to be deeply troubled by the deaths of heretics have chosen Luther as their captain, nor the lack of mention of all the Catholics who were killed primarily for being Catholic. Luther Favored the Death Penalty for Anabaptists

Here are the documented facts:

Luther sanctioned capital punishment for doctrinal heresy most notably in his Commentary on the 82nd Psalm (vol. 13, pp. 39-72 in the 55-volume set, Luther's Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan et al), written in 1530, where he advocated the following:
A question arises in connection with these three verses [Psalm 82]. Since the gods, or rulers, beside their other virtues, are to advance God’s Word and its preachers, are they also to put down opposing doctrines or heresies, since no one can be forced to believe? The answer to this question is as follows: First, some heretics are seditious and teach openly that no rulers are to be tolerated; that no Christian may occupy a position of rulership; that no one ought to have property of his own but should run away from wife and child and leave house and home; or that all property shall be held in common. These teachers are immediately, and without doubt, to be punished by the rulers, as men who are resisting temporal law and government (Rom. 13:1, 2). They are not heretics only but rebels, who are attacking the rulers and their government, just as a thief attacks another’s goods, a murderer another’s body, an adulterer another’s wife; and this is not to be tolerated. Second. If some were to teach doctrines contradicting an article of faith clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout the world by all Christendom, such as the articles we teach children in the Creed—for example, if anyone were to teach that Christ is not God, but a mere man and like other prophets, as the Turks and the Anabaptists hold—such teachers should not be tolerated, but punished as blasphemers. For they are not mere heretics but open blasphemers; and rulers are in duty bound to punish blasphemers as they punish those who curse, swear, revile, abuse, defame, and slander. With their blasphemy such teachers defame the name of God and rob their neighbor of his honor in the eyes of the world. In like manner, the rulers should also punish—or certainly not tolerate—those who teach that Christ did not die for our sins, but that everyone shall make his own satisfaction for them. For that, too, is blasphemy against the Gospel and against the article we pray in the Creed: “I believe in the forgiveness of sins” and “in Jesus Christ, dead and risen.” Those should be treated in the same way who teach that the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting are nothing, that there is no hell, and like things, as did the Sadducees and the Epicureans, of whom many are now arising among the great wiseacres.
By this procedure no one is compelled to believe, for he can still believe what he will; but he is forbidden to teach and to blaspheme. For by so doing he would take from God and the Christians their doctrine and word, and he would do them this injury under their own protection and by means of the things all have in common. Let him go to some place where there are no Christians. For, as I have often said: He who makes a living from the citizens ought to keep the law of the city, and not defame and revile it; or else he ought to get out. We are told that when the holy fathers at the Council of Nicea heard the doctrine of the Arians read, all hissed unanimously, and would not listen or permit any argument or defense but condemned them out of hand, without disputation, as blasphemers. Moses in his Law commands that such blasphemers and indeed all false teachers should be stoned (Lev. 24:16). So, in this case, there ought not to be much disputing; but such open blasphemers should be condemned without a hearing and without defense, as Paul commands (Titus 3:10): “A heretic is to be avoided and let go, after he has been admonished once or twice”; and he forbids Timothy to wrangle and dispute, since this has no effect, except to pervert those who hear (1 Tim. 6:20). For these common articles of all Christendom have had hearing enough. They have been proved and decreed by the Scriptures and by the confession of the whole church, confirmed by many miracles, and sealed by the blood of many holy martyrs. They are testified to and defended in the books of all the doctors. They need no more discussion and clever interpretation.

(Luther's Works [LW], Vol. 13, 61-62; bolding added)

Is this merely my interpretation of his words and thoughts? Hardly. The famous Luther biographer Roland Bainton wrote:

In 1530 Luther advanced the view that two offences should be penalized even with death, namely sedition and blasphemy. The emphasis was thus shifted from incorrect belief to its public manifestation by word and deed. This was, however, no great gain for liberty, because Luther construed mere abstention from public office and military service as sedition and a rejection of an article of the Apostles' Creed as blasphemy.

In a memorandum of 1531, composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, a rejection of the ministerial office was described as insufferable blasphemy, and the disintegration of the Church as sedition against the ecclesiastical order. In a memorandum of 1536, again composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, the distinction between the peaceful and the revolutionary Anabaptists was obliterated . . .

Melanchthon this time argued that even the passive action of the Anabaptists in rejecting government, oaths, private property, and marriages outside the faith was itself disruptive of the civil order and therefore seditious. The Anabaptist protest against the punishment of blasphemy was itself blasphemy. The discontinuance of infant baptism would produce a heathen society and separation from the Church, and the formation of sects was an offense against God.

Luther may not have been too happy about signing these memoranda. At any rate he appended postscripts to each. To the first he said,

I assent. Although it seems cruel to punish them with the sword, it is crueler that they condemn the ministry of the Word and have no well-grounded doctrine and suppress the true and in this way seek to subvert the civil order.

. . . In 1540 he is reported in his Table Talk to have returned to the position of Philip of Hesse that only seditious Anabaptists should be executed; the others should be merely banished. But Luther passed by many an opportunity to speak a word for those who with joy gave themselves as sheep for the slaughter.

. . . For the understanding of Luther's position one must bear in mind that Anabaptism was not in every instance socially innocuous. The year in which Luther signed the memorandum counseling death even for the peaceful Anabaptists was the year in which a group of them ceases to be peaceful . . . By forcible measures they took over the city of Munster in Westphalia . . .

Yet when all these attenuating considerations are adduced, one cannot forget that Melanchthon's memorandum justified the eradication of the peaceful, not because they were incipient and clandestine revolutionaries, but on the ground that even a peaceful renunciation of the state itself constituted sedition.

(Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, New York: Mentor, 1950, 295-296; bolding added)

Luther signed his name in assent to the 1536 pamphlet written by Philip Melanchthon (noted by biographer Bainton above), in which Melanchthon wrote:

That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished with the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it. . . . Concerning such tenets, this is our answer : As the secular authorities are bound to control and punish open blasphemy, so they are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine, irregular Church services and heresies in their own dominions; for this is commanded by God in the other commandment where He says : "Whoso dishonours God's name shall not go unpunished." Everybody is bound, according to his position and office, to prevent and check blasphemy, and by virtue of this command the princes and magistrates have power and authority to put a stop to irregular Church worship. The text in Leviticus xxiv. goes to show the same thing : "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death." The ruling authorities, however, must suffer themselves to be property and correctly instructed in order that they may be certain how to proceed, and that nobody may do wrong. Now there are some among these articles of faith which signify very much. For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized; what would be the final outcome but thoroughly heathenish existence? Item, infant baptism rests on such sure foundations that the Anabaptists have no legitimate grounds for rejecting it. Item, if they say that children do not need forgiveness of sins, that there is no original sin, such statements are downright and very dangerous errors. Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches, even in those places where pure Christian doctrine prevails, and where the abuses and idolatrous practices have been abolished, and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound to suppress blasphemy, false doctrine, and heresy, and to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders. In the case of Anabaptist tenets which are opposed to the secular government the matter is easier to deal with ; for there is no doubt that in such cases the stiffnecked recalcitrants are sure to be punished as sedition-mongers. Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then, because these articles are also important. . . we conclude that in these cases also the stubborn sectaries must be put to death.

(cited in Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891]; Vol. X, 222-223; bolding added)

Reformed anti-Catholic Presbyterian polemicist James Swan (who writes a lot about Luther) provided further information:

Janssen documents the quote as "the [injunction] of 1536 (published in the Zeitschr für histor. theol. xxviii [1538], p. 560 ff." This refers to Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie, Volume 28. Page 560 can be found here. What's being referred to is a document drawn up by Melanchthon entitled, Ob christliche fürsten schsind, der Wiedertäufer unchristliche Sect mit leiblicher Strafe und mit dem Schwert zu wehren, or, Das Weltiche Oberkeitt den Widertafferen mit leiblicher, Straff zu weren schuldig sey / Etlicher Bedenken zu Wittenberg, which can be found in WA 50: 6-15.

The person who denied this has been urging others to now "ignore" and "forget" Luther because he has been dead for 450 years and his life "shouldn't mean a thing."

I found this to be a quite curious and surprising development, since a search on that site revealed that he had talked about Luther in posts 96 times in the last 42 days, for an average of 2.29 times a day. In the same time period he mentioned our Lord Jesus only 58 times, faith 43 times, and the Bible 25 times. Aren't search engines a load of fun?

Utterly unable to resist (due to the incorrigible influence of Malcolm Muggeridge and G.K. Chesterton) the inherent and rather spectacular comedic possibilities of this turn of events, I wrote:

One can readily see, then, what a revolution this newfound realization will be in [so-and-so's] day-to-day life. Luther has nothing to do with one's faith; should be forgotten and ignored, yet he has talked about him in the last six weeks more than twice as much as "faith" and almost twice as much as Jesus, and nearly four times as much as the Holy Bible. He mentioned him ten times yesterday alone, or almost four times more than his average frequency. So this will be quite a change. Just in time for Lent . . .

People have tried to discredit my Luther research before, with the same dismal and semi-humorous result.

Thank you for your support.

In context with the sidebar as I had read it, post 2577 appeared to focus the claim at a particular Freeper rather than broadly at arms length. To keep the thread from drifting into motivations of the messenger rather than the message, I posted a warning. If it were particularly offensive, i.e. likely to incite a flame war, I would have pulled it.

Warnings are intended to calm the debate and for that reason, everyone in the sidebar is to consider himself warned if anyone has been warned.

Luther had a good teacher: Rome

Are you excusing and defending Luther's hatred of the Jews by claiming Rome taught him that, after he had broken with the Catholic Church, started his own religion, reached out to the Jews been rejected, and unleashed a furious and satanic hatred on the Jews ? Which denomination, sect, or group do you assemble with ?

Such defense of Luther is similar to the defense Julius Streicher tied at Nuremberg. The court was not persuaded and he was hanged.

DR. MARX: Apart from your weekly journal, and particularly after the Party came into power, were there any other publications in Germany which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way?

STREICHER: Anti-Semitic publications have existed in Germany for centuries. A book I had, written by Dr. Martin Luther, was, for instance, confiscated. Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book The Jews and Their Lies, Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them...

The prevailing scholarly view since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany's attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust.[22] Four hundred years after it was written, the Nazis displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published.[23]

The Eastern Orthodox reject Catholicism

no they don't

You claimed: "rejecting Catholicism is rejecting the church that Christ founded and thus rejecting Christ". The Eastern Orthodox DO reject that the Roman Catholic church is THE, one, true church Christ established. The EO reject the dogmas that the Pope is infallible, that he is the head of all Christendom, they reject Purgatory and the immaculate conception of Mary. Curiously, these are also areas many not-Catholic Christians also disagree with Catholicism.

So, unless you are playing a semantics game with the word "Catholic" - you wouldn't be the first here to do that - genuine Christians can and do reject Catholicism as the church Jesus established and they are NOT rejecting Jesus by doing so, just believing God.

Catholics have never denied that...of course there are Christians outside the Catholic church

So, when you stated "rejecting Catholicism is rejecting the church that Christ founded and thus rejecting Christ", you didn't mean it?

Martin Luther hated the Jews. He was a leader the Nazis admired and they implemented his recommendations.

af_vet_1981, you are without excuse, You have at least twice laid this charge at Luther's feet and been exposed as ignoring the of antisemitism, or anti-Judaism as with Luther, of your own popes, which is abundantly substantiated.

Thus In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer states,

“the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so”

• The crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection.(Pope Innocent III, “Epistle to the Hierarchy of France,” July 15, 1205)

• It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime. (St. Thomas Aquinas, “De Regimine Judaeorum”)

More .

Not that this excuses things Luther should not have said, but which is of little consequence to us, as unlike RCs, we do not follow men as popes.

However, if you want to invoke Luther and the Jews regarding his latter exasperated negativity,

then do the same with some of your

“The Popes Against the Jews,” Part 1

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 2: Roman Catholic Defenses and the Evasion of Responsibility Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 3: Positing the “Big Lie,” and getting people to believe it. Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 4: Church Councils Against the Jews Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 5: “You will recognize them by their fruits.” Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 6: The Show So Far Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

There is no such place as purgatory. True believers are totally cleansed by the blood of Christ.

then why does the real bible tell us to pray for the dead???

You mean why does one of the books that was disputed down thru the centuries and right in Trent, 2 teach that prayers and sacrifices for the dead are efficacious for men who died in mortal sin, contrary to RC teaching, for which there is no purgatory.

And upon the day following, as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves. Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain. (2Ma 12:39-40) .

Thus all you have is an extraBiblical book which proves more than you want, and forces RC apologists to engage in special pleading for damage control.

unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of His blood, you shall not have life within you.

So since this exclude all Prots who deny the Cath. "Real Presence," and you also stated that "rejecting Catholicism is rejecting the church that Christ founded and thus rejecting Christ," when are you going to answer my question "are you SSPX or SSPV seeing as you reject V2 teaching on properly baptized Prots?" (or interpret it different than the pope and others?)

At least, according to Paul.

Where? You mean he secretly taught these things ?

If you think the Greek will help you here go to it,

5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Olethros = destruction (ruin, destroy, death)
For when they shall say , Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child ; and they shall not escape.c
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. Sarx = flesh ( flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts)
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men , another flesh of beasts , another of fishes, and another of birds.

Μένωme στη Κόρινθος (I live in Corinth).

Luther kind of started the slide from the truth of Catholicism down to the error of protestantism

Really? RC see the past with rose colored glasses, as if Rome did not reformation. In addition to her doctrinal deformation, you have the moral aspects.

Cardinal Ratzinger observed,

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)

• Joseph Lortz, German Roman Catholic theologian:

“The real significance of the Western Schism rests in the fact that for decades there was an almost universal uncertainty about where the true pope and the true Church were to be found. For several decades, both popes had excommunicated each other and his followers; thus all Christendom found itself under sentence of excommunication by at least one of the contenders. Both popes referred to their rival claimant as the Antichrist, and to the Masses celebrated by them as idolatry. It seemed impossible to do anything about this scandalous situation, despite sharp protests from all sides, and despite the radical impossibility of having two valid popes at the same time. Time and time again, the petty selfishness of the contenders blocked any solution...”

“The significance of the break-up of medieval unity in the thirteenth century, but even more during the Avignon period, is evident in the most distinctive historical consequence of the Avignon Papacy: the Great Western Schism. The real meaning of this event may not be immediately apparent. It can be somewhat superficially described as a period when there were two popes, each with his own Curia, one residing in Rome, the other in Avignon.”

“The real significance of the Western Schism rests in the fact that for decades there was an almost universal uncertainty about where the true pope and the true Church were to be found. For several decades, both popes had excommunicated each other and his followers; thus all Christendom found itself under sentence of excommunication by at least one of the contenders. Both popes referred to their rival claimant as the Antichrist, and to the Masses celebrated by them as idolatry. It seemed impossible to do anything about this scandalous situation, despite sharp protests from all sides, and despite the radical impossibility of having two valid popes at the same time. Time and time again, the petty selfishness of the contenders blocked any solution...”

“When Luther asserted that the pope of Rome was not the true successor of Saint Peter and that the Church could do without the Papacy, in his mind and in their essence these were new doctrines, but the distinctive element in them was not new and thus they struck a sympathetic resonance in the minds of many. Long before the Reformation itself, the unity of the Christian Church in the West had been severely undermined.” ("The Reformation: A Problem for Today” (Maryland: The Newman Press, 1964), “The Causes of the Reformation," pp. 35-37; . http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/roman-catholic-scholar-look-at-causes.html )

• Catholic Encyclopedia>Council of Constance:

“The Western Schism was thus at an end, after nearly forty years of disastrous life; one pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of the Church, "a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock" (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm)

• Cardinal Bellarmine:

"Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)

• Erasmus, in his new edition of the “Enchiridion: “What man of real piety does not perceive with sighs that this is far the most corrupt of all ages? When did iniquity abound with more licentiousness? When was charity so cold?” (“The Evolution of the English Bible: A Historical Sketch of the Successive,” p. 132 by Henry William Hamilton-Hoare)

• Catholic historian Paul Johnson additionally described the existing social situation among the clergy at the time of the Reformation:

“Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation. It was a great social problem and, other factors being equal, it tended to tip the balance in favour of reform. As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself.” (History of Christianity, pgs 269-270)

• In the summer of 1536, Pope Paul III appointed Cardinals Contarini and Cafara and a commission to study church Reform. The report of this commission, the Consilium de emendanda ecclesiae, was completed in March 1537. The final paragraphs deal with the corruptions of Renaissance Rome itself:

“the swarm of sordid and ignorant priests in the city, the harlots who are followed around by clerics and by the noble members of the cardinals’ households …”

“The immediate effects of the Consilium fell far below the hopes of its authors and its very frankness hampered its public use. … the more noticeably pious prelates [note: this the “noticeably pious” clergy] had no longer to tolerate the open cynicism of the Medicean period, and when moral lapses by clerics came to light, pains were now taken to hush them up as matters of grievous scandal.” (G. Dickens, “The Counter Reformation,” pp. 100,102)

In the same candid spirit is the following statement of de Mézeray, the historiographer of France: [Abrege’ Chronol. VIII. 691, seqq. a Paris, 1681]

“As the heads of the Church paid no regard to the maintenance of discipline, the vices and excesses of the ecclesiastics grew up to the highest pitch, and were so public and universally exposed as to excite against them the hatred and contempt of the people. We cannot repeat without a blush the usury, the avarice, the gluttony, the universal dissoluteness of the priests of this period, the licence and debauchery of the monks, the pride and extravagance of the prelates, and the shameful indolence, ignorance and superstition pervading the whole body .... These were not, I confess, new scandals: I should rather say that the barbarism and ignorance of preceding centuries, in some sort, concealed such vices; but,, on the subsequent revival of the light of learning, the spots which I have pointed out became more manifest, and as the unlearned who were corrupt could not endure the light through the pain which it caused to their eyes, so neither did the learned spare them, turning them to ridicule and delighting to expose their turpitude and to decry their superstitions.”

Bossuet* in the opening statements of his “Histoire des Variations,” admits the frightful corruptions of the Church for centuries before the Reformation; and he has been followed in our own times by Frederic von Schlegel [Philosophy of History, 400, 401, 410, Engl. Transl. 1847.] and Möhler. [Symbolik, II. 31, 32, Engl. Transl.]

No, the majority of the Jewish people at that time were not literate..if, somehow they had learned to read, they had nothing in their possession to read...there were no newspapers, periodicals, publishers clearing house hadn't even been thought of yet. Please explain to me what they read and where did they get it.

I'd really like to see the sources you have read that informed your ideas about literacy in ancient Israel and the rest of the world. Though we know people spoke different languages, the existence of an actual alphabet and a written language came later - they were not simultaneous. But, majority illiteracy was NOT the norm. We have Biblical writings that date to Moses' time. I'd like to know what you think the purpose would be for a written Scripture if nobody was able to read it? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy:

Ancient and medieval literacy

Until recently it was thought that the majority of people were illiterate in ancient times. However, recent work has challenged this long held notion. Anthony DiRenzo asserts that Roman society was “a civilization based on the book and the register”, and "no one, either free or slave, could afford to be illiterate".[14] Similarly Dupont points out, "The written word was all around them, in both public and private life: laws, calendars, regulations at shrines, and funeral epitaphs were engraved in stone or bronze. The Republic amassed huge archives of reports on every aspect of public life".[15]

When the Western Roman Empire fell apart literacy became a distinguishing mark of the elite, and communications skills were politically important.[16]

In the late fourth century the Desert Father Pachomius expected literacy of a candidate for admission to his monasteries:

they shall give him twenty Psalms or two of the Apostles' epistles or some other part of Scripture. And if he is illiterate he shall go at the first, third and sixth hours to someone who can teach and has been appointed for him. He shall stand before him and learn very studiously and with all gratitude. The fundamentals of a syllable, the verbs and nouns shall all be written for him and even if he does not want to he shall be compelled to read.[17]

Literacy in Europe

In 12th and 13th century England, the ability to recite a particular passage from the Bible in Latin entitled a common law defendant to the so-called benefit of clergy—i.e., trial before an ecclesiastical court, where sentences were more lenient, instead of a secular one, where hanging was a likely sentence. Thus literate lay defendants often claimed the right to benefit of clergy, while an illiterate person who had memorized the psalm used as the literacy test, Psalm 51 ("O God, have mercy upon me..."), could also claim benefit of clergy.[18]

Wales

Formal higher education in the arts and sciences in Wales, from the Dark Ages to the 18th century, was the preserve of the wealthy and the clergy. As in England, Welsh history and archaeological finds dating back to the Bronze Age reveal not only reading and writing, but also alchemy, botany, advanced maths and science. Following the Roman occupation and the conquest by the English, education in Wales was at a very low ebb in the early modern period; in particular, formal education was only available in English while the majority of the population spoke only Welsh. The first modern grammar schools were established in Welsh towns such as Ruthin, Brecon, and Cowbridge. One of the first modern national education methods to use the native Welsh language was started by Griffith Jones in 1731.[19] Jones was the rector of Llanddowror from 1716 and remained there for the rest of his life. He organized and introduced a Welsh medium circulating school system, which was attractive and effective for Welsh speakers, while also teaching them English, which gave them access to broader educational sources. The circulating schools may have taught half the country's population to read. Literacy rates in Wales by the mid-18th century were one of the highest.

Continental Europe

The ability to read did not necessarily imply the ability to write. The 1686 church law (kyrkolagen) of the Kingdom of Sweden (which at the time included all of modern Sweden, Finland, Latvia and Estonia) enforced literacy on the people, and by 1800 the ability to read was close to 100%. But as late as the 19th century, many Swedes, especially women, could not write. That said, the situation in England was far worse than in Scandinavia, France, and Prussia: as late as 1841, 33% of all Englishmen and 44% of Englishwomen signed marriage certificates with their mark as they were unable to write (government-financed public education was not available in England until 1870 and, even then, on a limited basis).

Historian Ernest Gellner argues that Continental European countries were far more successful in implementing educational reform precisely because their governments were more willing to invest in the population as a whole.[20] The view that public education contributes to rising literacy levels is shared by the majority of historians.

Although the present-day concepts of literacy have much to do with the 15th-century invention of the movable type printing press, it was not until the Industrial Revolution of the mid-19th century that paper and books became affordable to all classes of industrialized society. Until then, only a small percentage of the population were literate as only wealthy individuals and institutions could afford the materials. Even today[update], the cost of paper and books is a barrier to universal literacy in some less-industrialized nations.

On the other hand, historian Harvey Graff argues that the introduction of mass schooling was in part an effort to control the type of literacy that the working class had access to. According to Graff, literacy learning was increasing outside of formal settings (such as schools) and this uncontrolled, potentially critical reading could lead to increased radicalization of the populace. In his view, mass schooling was meant to temper and control literacy, not spread it.[21] Graff also points out, using the example of Sweden, that mass literacy can be achieved without formal schooling or instruction in writing.

Literacy in North America

Canada

Colonial days (1600s–1762)

Research on the literacy rates of Canadians in the colonial days rested largely on examinations of the proportion of signatures to marks on parish acts (birth, baptismal, and marriage registrations). Although some researchers have concluded that signature counts drawn from marriage registers in nineteenth century France corresponded closely with literacy tests given to military conscripts,[22] others regard this methodology as a “relatively unimaginative treatment of the complex practices and events that might be described as literacy” (Curtis, 2007, p. 1-2).[23] But censuses (dating back to 1666) and official records of New France offer few clues of their own on the population’s levels of literacy, therefore leaving few options in terms of materials from which to draw literary rate estimates.

In his research of literacy rates of males and females in New France, Trudel found that in 1663, of 1,224 persons in New France who were of marriageable age, 59% of grooms and 46% of brides wrote their name; however, of the 3,000-plus colony inhabitants, less than 40% were native born.[24] Signature rates were therefore likely more reflective of rates of literacy among French immigrants. Magnuson’s (1985) research revealed a trend: signature rates for the period of 1680–1699 were 42% for males, 30% for females; in 1657-1715, they were 45% for males and 43% for females; in 1745-1754, they were higher for females than for males. He believed that this upward trend in rates of females’ ability to sign documents was largely attributed to the larger number of female-to-male religious orders, and to the proportionately more active role of women in health and education, while the roles of male religious orders were largely to serve as parish priests, missionaries, military chaplains and explorers. 1752 marked the date that Canada’s first newspaper—the Halifax Gazette—began publication.[25]

Not that this excuses things Luther should not have said, but which is of little consequence to us, as unlike RCs, we do not follow men as popes.

I disagree. It seems to me if it were of little consequence to us, it would not evoke such heated denial and defense of Luther.

Luther essentially and historically (re)started their religions; if he is shown to be evil or mentally ill, all the doctrines traceable to him are undermined as the illegitimate work of a rebellious priest who went mad and sank into wickedness.
Their sense of salvation by grace alone is essentially based on Luther being saved; if Luther is shown to be a satanic enemy of the Jews who will not inherit the kingdom of God, then their salvation is threatened.
Luther was the foremost crusader against the Catholic Church. Some thirty million perished in religious wars triggered by his rebellion against his faith. If he is shown as evil or mentally ill, the antiCatholic crusade he launched is shown to be the work of a madman or a wicked rebel.

The temptation and need to rehabilitate Luther at the expense of the Anabaptists and the Jews is overwhelming and essential for the preservation of the reformation. If Luther is wrong, the Reformation is illegitimate. Then all they have left are the Catholic/Orthodox and the Independent Fundamental Baptists who reject the Reformation.

Are you excusing and defending Luther's hatred of the Jews by claiming Rome taught him that, after he had broken with the Catholic Church, started his own religion,

Luther has no more excuse then those who said like things before him.

Luther at the beginning sought the welfare of Jews, but their intractable hardness, pride, acts and blasphemies finally exasperated him, while Luther was never one to mince words and use acerbic speech at times. The Jews of old provoked even Moses "spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips," (Psalms 106:33) but Luther was wrong in advising worse things than conservative want to be done to illegal immigrants.

Yet many things are charged with inciting antisemitism. Paul himself stated by the Holy Spirit,

For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)

But Paul was willing to be damned for them.

And

Patristic bishops of the patristic era such as Augustine argued that the Jews should be left alive and suffering as a perpetual reminder of their murder of Christ. Other Church Fathers, such as John Chrysostom went longer in their condemnation. Ephraim the Syrian wrote polemics against Jews in the 4th century, including the repeated accusation that Satan dwells among them as a partner. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism#The_Church_Fathers

Yet Hitler's use of things to justify the holocaust must be understood as one aspect of his deception.

Listen to this speech:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…

And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed.”

[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on his personal Christian feelings. Published in "My New Order", quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]

What guile!

I'm not even going to bother replying to all this other moving of the goal posts commentary you posted in this note, until you deal with the answer I provided for your last before this one.

Like when it is demonstrated that the Catholic claim of universality goes all the way back to 110 AD in contradiction to the initial claim of 12th century AD and so then the issue becomes papal primacy, is that the kind of goal post moving you're talking about?

He was ex-communicated. And according to historians, no one knows precisely where he breathed his last.

You're right. Nobody knows. We can hope and pray though. I'll concede that one. Must've been something I picked up along my travels.

But I KNEW the wiggle-worm serpentine RC apologetic (such as characterized by that which is highlighted in brown text, above) in attempt to distance the wholesale murders from the Roman Catholic Church -- would come out, doing it's usual snake-footed, slithering tap-dancing. I've seen it a thousand times.

So sorry that the details of the matter screw up a good protestant screed.

Meanwhile -- to any rebutal and additional claims you may wish to make -- bring proper documentation. I get sick and tired of doing all the work around here -- combating erroneous & twisted assertions. The half-truths, with a cunning twist to them -- which turns what truth there is of a thing into misleading statements which obscure or turn things sideways -- take much time to straighten out.

It's a heavy burden being the smartest guy in the room. I sympathize.

Oh, they believed they needed to live a pure and sanctified life alright, but it is highly doubtful they believed they could do so "without His grace".

I don't think so:

In its semi-Pelagian component, an emphasis on the human capability to choose righteousness and reject evil deliberately, Waldensianism stressed that it was in the here and now, in faith and in works, that every Christian could and had to choose between the two. [1]

Even today --- there are many Roman Catholics, and others also -- who although they say they believe in Grace --- still believe they must also ~~work to earn it.~~ cooperate with it.

Which assumes that one isn't intentionally misconstruing what they are saying when they say work as a euphemism for cooperation with God's grace. So I ask, again: when you encounter Catholics whom you know are saying things contradictory to the teaching of the Church do you correct them? It would go something like this, "Actually the Catholic Church teaches..." We wouldn't want them to fall into anathema now would we?

If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema [2].

A wise, all-knowing God (which He is) would not have set up such a system -- as the Romanist one, as that was known (and functioned!) in centuries past. God is good. Not stupid, and cruel.

Yes He is. And everything God made is good including the universe, everything in it and the human body. So He is not predisposed to engage in the gnostic predilections of protestants with their ignorance and bias toward the created world. In it we find His Church which is the epitome of His intellect and mercy.

[1] Kaelber, L. (1998). Schools of asceticism: Ideology and organization in medieval religious communities. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

[2] Paul III Council of Trent-6. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

You just skipped over the central (and dead) meat of the matter -- which was the proof you demanded -- then stuffed your comment full of a bunch more of your own editorialized and bigoted opinions.

The Holy Father is responsible for the souls of his flock. Why would it surprise anyone that the Pope issues a bull which is in effect a hostage rescue operation despite Schaff's editorializing.

Is that what you are hear for?

I'm going to be very honest with you and you can take this comment for what it's worth. I've been a lurker since 1998. You know what brought me out of the shadows? It was the protestant contingent with their ignorant and nasty attacks and calumnies against the good Catholics here on FR and The Church.

Good and faithful Catholics who are mocked and abused by the pack of circling protestant jackals. Who, like I said, rely upon the tactics of the atheist Feuerbach and the modern Alinskyite tactics of mockery and derision coupled with whatever adages the Church of What's Happening Now can come up with in the 21st century.

These beautiful Catholics (and we know who they are) whose heroic patience we see every day as they patiently and in charity attempt to explain the teachings of the Faith who are then derided. But are we not taught to expect that (John 15:18)?

That's why I am here. To defend the Church and my brothers and sisters in the Catholic faith to the best of my ability. I said earlier on this thread I'm the JV. I claim no expertise or scholarship. I'm just a public school guy. But I'm also learning and growing in my faith thanks to FR and my Catholic bretheren.

Nobody wants to hear that kind of unsubstantiated, broad- based, highly generalized, accusatorial GARBAGE -- where some marginal tendency perceived by your own self to belong to "Protestants" be smeared all over pretty much every single soul of the "Western" portions of Christianity -- who are themselves not Roman Catholic.

Are you claiming to be the sola authority on what everybody wants to hear? Personally, I found a niche area of theological/philosophical argumentation that isn't necessarily covered on the RF and so I'm exploiting it. And if you think I'm alone in this I can assure you I'm not. Father Robert Barron and I are of the same mindset:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDZbYoeMAIo

You keep inviting me to leave.

I do. I'm genuinely concerned for your well being. You seem agitated.

That sort of perpetuated and continuing habit which you've been at for months now -- is abuse of the persons here, and abuse of the forum (and the management thereof) being as it is abuse of the privilege.

I've managed to stay on the right side of the site administrators for the most part. Aside from a couple of wrist slaps here and there for making it personal in using the incorrect personal pronoun or descending into the gutter of protestant mockery. Benefits of being a long-time lurker. And if at some point the site administration sees fit to remove me then so be it. I'll return to lurker land.