Why would anyone become Catholic?

https://www.indiegogo.com ^ | October 2, 2014 | Indiegogo

[NKP_Vet]

Why would intelligent, successful people give up their careers, alienate their friends, and cause havoc in their families...to become Catholic? Indeed, why would anyone become Catholic?

As an evangelist and author who recently threw my own life into some turmoil by deciding to enter the Catholic Church, I've faced this question a lot lately. That is one reason I decided to make this documentary; it's part of my attempt to try to explain to those closest to me why I would do such a crazy thing.

Convinced isn't just about me, though. The film is built around interviews with some of the most articulate and compelling Catholic converts in our culture today, including Scott Hahn, Francis Beckwith, Taylor Marshall, Holly Ordway, Abby Johnson, Jeff Cavins, Devin Rose, Matthew Leonard, Mark Regnerus, Jason Stellman, John Bergsma, Christian Smith, Kevin Vost, David Currie, Richard Cole, and Kenneth Howell. It also contains special appearances by experts in the field of conversion such as Patrick Madrid and Donald Asci.

Ultimately, this is a story about finding truth, beauty, and fulfillment in an unexpected place, and then sacrificing to grab on to it. I think it will entertain and inspire you, and perhaps even give you a fresh perspective on an old faith.

[JPX2011]

It's difficult for me to discern whether they really and truly believe what they're posting or whether it's just their job to hold up the RCC side on FR Religion Forum threads and they know it's proven bunk.

Why should that be a concern of yours? Especially in the context of this mode of communication. Could it be that the cult of personality is inherent in Protestant expression and being able to divine motive/sincerity is explicit in determing truth. The Donatist tendency emerging most often expressed as, "he doesn't speak to me. I'm moving on to the next ecclesial community down the road."

[MamaB]

It sure is. Anyone who trusts man over God is not a Christian. How many mistakes has man made compared to God? God is the answer—the only answer.

[JPX2011]

Nah, they just write it off as one of the *mysteries of the faith* like they do with any blatant contradiction they espouse.

Like the apparent contradiction of The Blessed Trinity. I am so glad the Protestant contingent has come to full and complete understanding of this Mystery of the Faith.

It must be nice to be able to reduce one's faith to a2 + b2 = c2. Remind me again why Protestants are not post-modern secularists.

[CynicalBear]

>>Why should that be a concern of yours?<<

Because we are told to.

1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

[CynicalBear]

>> I am so glad the Protestant contingent has come to full and complete understanding of this Mystery of the Faith.<<

Mystery?

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

What mystery?

[Colonel_Flagg]

Reread your own post to which I replied.

[metmom]

Like the apparent contradiction of The Blessed Trinity.

*apparent contradiction* ≠ *blatant contradiction*

Besides, the Trinity is not a contradiction not a mystery. It is clearly spelled out in Scripture, which is why born again believers adhere to it.

[af_vet_1981]

Mystery? 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. What mystery?

The mystery is whether you affirm or deny that this verse is the inspired word of God. What say you ? If you say yes, you abandon Protestant/Evangelical/Other position and admit their new translations are false and do not include the entire inspired Bible. If you say no, you deny the KJV and Textus Receptus upon which it is based, admitting the Reformation never had a complete and correct Bible all these centuries, and may not now, depending on modern scholarship rather than. Received Text. Sola Scriptura is exposed as insufficient; Catholics do not have this problem, relying on both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition for truth.

[MamaB]

Every church I have ever been in believes that. I do not think it is a mystery at all. We are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Where do these ideas come from?

[daniel1212]

It seems to me Protestants/Evangelicals/Other are compelled to defend Luther

Actually, unlike the pope which RCs seem to think we see Luther as, if RCs were not often attacking Luther you would hardly see him mentioned by most evangelicals.

But he is defended mainly because RCs presume they have an argument by attacking him, and in doing so they often take him out of context, or parrot false quotes, despite frequent corrections.

I would ask other born again evangelicals if Luther was so important in their conversion or present faith that they feel their security threatened by attacks on him, as RCs do with attacks on their church or papacy. Or if their faith is based upon Scriptural substantiation, in word and in life, as in Scripture.

The real issue is why RCs are so preoccupied with attacking Luther, almost invariably being the ones who introduce and focus on him in an debate with evangelicals (being basically the only class that will contend for anything), while the latter cite Scripture, not Luther, until RCs evidence they think attacking Luther will somehow gain them a desperately needed argument for Rome.

• 1. RCs do what Scripture says not to do, "think of men "above that which is written" (1Co. 4:6) - "men" including women - which is evidenced in their incessant focus upon what the pope did or said. Their security is manifestly in a particular church, in which they find their identity and cherish a elitist supreme view of, and thus they feel threatened by anything that impugns it in the least, characteristic of the cults.

Thus unlike evangelicals and NT believers, they constantly are preaching their particular church, which stands in such contrast to the NT church that it is basically invisible in Scripture.

This is due to the majority never having had a "day of salvation" in which under conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment, they came to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, and trusted Him to save them on His blood-expense and credit, and thus experienced the profound changes in heart and life centered upon a relationship with the Christ of Scripture, by which they often enjoy a spontaneous and working relationship with others who also have realized this transformative regeneration, many of which were former RCs.

• 2. As RC cannot conceive of a faith that is not (Catholic) church-centric, papists , because they are papists and anxiously watch their pope - cannot but think evangelicals must likewise look to and follow a man, that of Luther as a pope who started their new religion, as RCs even believe Luther did.

But in reality, Luther and Reformers worked to bring the church back to NT faith from the deformation that is Rome (no supreme perpetual infallible papacy, no perpetually infallible magisterium, no distinctive sacerdotal clerical class of priests, no praying to the departed, no purgatory, etc.) Which is in contrast Scripture being the supreme transcendent standard for faith and obedience as the assured word of God, which it is so manifest to be. Thus the Reformation was progressive, rejecting many things Luther held at the beginning.

Therefore as Scripture and not man is the the Scriptural standard, even if Luther was shown to be all the horrible things traddie RCs attribute to them in their angst, it would hardly faze those who have been born again with its profound changes and relationship with their Lord, who thus look to Christ as the Rock of their faith, not man or a church. For RCs, this is such a foreign reality that they must attack Luther or their current pope, yet the latter is held as valid no matter how evil.

• 3. Some RC's actually believe Prots sense of salvation by grace alone is essentially based on Luther being saved, thus by attacking Luther, even by engaging in psycho-history , they imagine they will destroy Prot. faith, as if evangelicals were saved by looking to Luther, not the Christ of Scripture.

But most evangelicals were born again by faith in the Christ of Scripture, and knew little or nothing about Luther, whom they typically differ substantially from. Thus if RCs want to destroy evangelical faith, they need to discredit the Scriptures and its Christ as libs do, which in fact much of Roman scholarship is in sympathy with.

• 4. RCs uncritically post parroted anti-Luther polemics and Obscure Luther Quotes, and thus actually believe that his teaching rejected the need for holiness and works if one would be saved by faith, and or that SS means only the Bible is to be used in understanding God's will, and or that Luther as a maverick removed books from a infallible canon for no reason except they supported RC traditions that he opposed, and did not include them in his canon, and that he also did not have papal and Catholic precedent in his latter language against the Jews. Luther And The Jews and the A "Roman Catholic" Martin Luther Quiz may help, and more .

• 5. They believe that if Luther is wrong, the Reformation is illegitimate, and of course he must be wrong, as if a pope is wrong then Roman religion is wrong, but unlike Luther, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Thus she simply cannot be wrong, if she does say so herself.

This premise of assured veracity is itself wrong in the light of Scripture, in which the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, as instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Out of Scripture being supreme comes the other cardinal Truth, that in regeneration God justifies the unGodly by faith being counted, imputed for righteousness, (Rm. 3:10-4:7ff) out of which must flow obedience, and repentance whn convicted of the contrary, versus being "formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis)" via sprinkling with water, (Catholic Encyclopedia >Sanctifying Grace) usually as a morally incognizant infant. And thus, as the subject sins and somewhat fails in moral perfection, usually the subject must conclude this salvation process by becoming good enough (and atoning for sins) in purgatory.

While Luther could be wrong in some other things, if Luther was wrong in these two cardinal Truths then it would indeed be fatal to all who believe them, but which would invalidate the NT church itself. Instead, among other things, rejecting Scripture as the supreme transcendent standard, and making justification to be on account of ones own holiness via sprinkling, Rome,invalidates the church of Rome as being the one true church, though some within it may be part of the body of Christ, which is the one true church in the NT, as it alone consists of 100% believers Thanks be to God. .

[Resettozero]

What you said.

Now, if the collection for Jim’s bandwidth expense has all been taken up (hat passed), then after the benediction, we can all go have a nice hot lunch...or cold sandwich or whatever.

Who wants to give the benediction to this thread?

[CynicalBear]

>>The mystery is whether you affirm or deny that this verse is the inspired word of God. What say you ?<<

Does it comport with other Scripture? Yes. Does it contradict any other scripture? No.

>>If you say yes, you abandon Protestant/Evangelical/Other position and admit their new translations are false and do not include the entire inspired Bible.<<

Nice try but it doesn't matter. There is no dispute about 1 John 5:7 because three are who are testifying in the heaven

So I will again say it comports with the rest of scripture. If you dispute the trinity just say so.

>>Sola Scriptura is exposed as insufficient;<<

No, it is not. It reinforces it. If we use scripture alone no one part can contradict another part. Each part supports the whole of scripture. Which BTW eliminates the apocrypha as they often disagree with the rest or have internal errors.

>>Catholics do not have this problem, relying on both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition for truth.<<

Catholics have a whole host of problems with their "traditions". Your "tradition" often contradicts scripture or is outright condemned by scripture.

[JPX2011]

Every church I have ever been in believes that. I do not think it is a mystery at all. We are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Where do these ideas come from?

We have two faculties as Christians: Faith and Reason. Not mutually exclusive faculties but Faith begins where Reason ends. One cannot reason their way to God. It requires an Act of Faith. Because Faith extends beyond reason it is by definition a mystery. It cannot be fully explained in any traditional empirical sense. So for one to say there is no mystery (or mysteries) to their faith is in error. That all (including the Dogma of the Blessed Trinity) is accepted literally "as a matter of fact" is to deny Faith.

Which is why it is so disingenuous and hypocritical for someone, especially a self-professed Christian to claim that Catholics hide behind their "mysteries of faith". Protestants accepting of the Trinity because it is "true" is not an act of faith.

[xone]

Martin Luther hated the Jews.

Probably got that from being a Catholic.

Timeline of Catholic anti-semitism

None of your Luther extracts concern killing Jews, making them wear special marks on their clothes, burning their books. From the above, that was an innovation of the Catholics and copied by the Nazis. BTW the Nazis hated the Reformation as well.

[metmom]

Every church I have ever been in believes that. I do not think it is a mystery at all. We are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Where do these ideas come from?

The pit.

Anything to try to accuse or destroy the credibility of the other side.

Catholics do not have anything of substance with which to debate *Prots* (for lack of a better term), so they make stuff up and accuse us of it.

Strawmen are so much easier to knock down.

[af_vet_1981]

While Luther could be wrong in some other things, if Luther was wrong in these two cardinal Truths then it would indeed be fatal to all who believe them, but which would invalidate the NT church itself.

Do you and your assembly agree with the Catholics and Lutherans concerning the baptism of infants ? Infant Baptism

Infant baptism[1][2] is the practice of baptising infants or young children. In theological discussions, the practice is sometimes referred to as paedobaptism or pedobaptism from the Greek pais meaning "child". The practice is sometimes contrasted with what is called "believer's baptism", or credobaptism, from the Latin word credo meaning "I believe", which is the religious practice of baptising only individuals who personally confess faith in Jesus, therefore excluding underage children. Infant baptism is also called christening by some faith traditions.

Most Christians belong to denominations that practise infant baptism.[3] Denominational families that practise infant baptism include Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, some Nazarenes,[4] the United Church of Christ (UCC), Moravian Church, Metropolitan Community Church, Wesleyans, Episcopalians, and Reformed churches.

This may explain why Luther thought the Anabaptists had to die; not to mention throwing Baptists and Evangelicals under the bus today; baptizing or not baptizing infants was a matter of heresy. The Augsburg Confession of 1530 is an early Lutheran confession of faith, authored mainly by Philip Melancthon and approved by Martin Luther and presented to King Charles V. In Article IX, “Of baptism,” it says: Of baptism [the churches with common consent among us] teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that by Baptism the grace of God is offered, and that children are to be baptized, who by Baptism, being offered to God, are received into God’s favor. They condemn the Anabaptists who allow not the Baptism of children, and affirm that children are saved without Baptism. (Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 3, p. 13)

[Resettozero]

You’re getting a C- this semester! Just for rudely interrupting the benediction.

[daniel1212]

Thank you for a civil and interesting perspective; a few points: I would reword one sentence as " Luther at the beginning sought the welfare of Jews, but" his own hatred finally overcame him and left us his legacy The Jews and Their Lies, and the horrific implementation of it by a wicked generation of his nation.

But where is the historical perspective RCs demand in seeking to engage in damage control for the Inquisitions, and in this case the Jews overall had evidently made themselves rather unlovable, as i suspect they were in 1930's Germany, yet which does not excuse the treatment that Luther and popes and other Catholics advocated.

Do I blame previous Catholics for such persecution ? Absolutely ! Yet I see

But why the standard ambiguous blaming of "Catholics" when this was seen from the top, as well as reasons like as Luther invoked?

From a SSPV site (http://www.romancatholicism.org/popes-jews.html). I do not have the time to verify and examine all quotes as is my practice:

Pope Martin V: “However, we received a short time ago through credible reports knowledge to our great alarm, that various Jews of both sexes in Cafas and other cities, lands and places overseas, which fall under the jurisdiction of Christians, are of obstinate mind and, in order to conceal swindling and wickedness, wear no special sign on their clothing, so that they are not recognisable as Jews.  They are not ashamed to give themselves out as Christians before many Christians of both sexes of these cities, districts and places mentioned, who could not in fact identify them, and consequently commit shameful things and crimes.” (Sedes Apostolica)

 

Pope Eugene IV: “We decree and order that from now on, and for all time […] All and every single Jew, of whatever sex and age, must everywhere wear the distinctive dress and known marks by which they can be evidently distinguished from Christians.”

 

Pope Saint Pius V: “In order to make an end of all doubt concerning the colour of the cap and the sign of the women, we declare that the colour must be yellow.” (Romanus Pontifex)

Pope Innocent III: “The Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord.” (To the Archbishops of Sens and Paris)

 

Pope Innocent IV: “And that you [King Saint Louis IX] order both the aforesaid abusive books [The Talmud] condemned by the same doctors and generally all the books with their glosses which were examined and condemned by them to be burned by fire wherever they can be found throughout your entire kingdom, strictly forbidding that Jews henceforth have Christian nurses or servants, that the sons of a free woman may not serve the sons of a bondwoman, but as slaves condemned by the Lord, whose death they wickedly plotted, they at least outwardly recognize themselves as slaves of those whom the death of Christ made free and themselves slaves.  So we may commend the zeal of your sincerity in the Lord with due praises.” (The Wicked Perfidy of the Jews)

 

Pope Saint Martin I: “If anyone shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.”

 

Pope Benedict XIV: “It is fitting for Jews to serve Christians, but not for Christians to serve Jews.  On the contrary, the Jews, as slaves rejected by that Saviour Whose death they wickedly contrived, should recognize themselves in fact and in creed the slaves of those whom the death of Christ has set free, even as it has rendered them bondmen.”  (Quoting Pope Innocent III, “Etsi Judaeos”)

 

Pope Gregory IX: “They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt.  See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future become insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear.” (Epistle to the Hierarchy of Germany)

 

Pope Alexander III at the Third Lateran Ecumenical Council: “We declare that the evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians - and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be slaves to Christians.” (Canon 26)

 

 

 

Pope St. Pius V expelled all
Jews from the papal realms

 

 

 

 

 

Pope Saint Pius V: “With full understanding and in exercising of the apostolic powers, we withdraw from the Jews and their rule (and recognize no right or claim) all properties, which the Jews have in their possession in this city Rome or other places of our domain of rule.”  (Cum Nos Super)

 

Pope Paul IV: “It is too absurd and pointless that the Jews, whom their own guilt condemns to slavery, under the pretence that Christian piety suffers and tolerates their coexistence, pay back [with wickedness] the mercy received from Christians.” (Cum Nimis Absurdum)

 

Pope Leo VII: “Let the Gospel be preached unto them and, if they remain obstinate, let them be expelled.”

 

 

Pope Innocent III: “The Lord made Cain a wanderer and a fugitive over the earth, but set a mark upon him, making his head to shake, lest anyone finding him should slay him.  Thus the Jews, against whom the blood of Christ calls out, although they ought not to be wiped out, nevertheless, as wanderers they must remain upon the earth until their faces are filled with shame and they seek the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Epistle to the Count of Nevers)

 

Pope Saint Sylvester I at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea: “Concerning the prohibition of usury and base gain by the clergy; and concerning the prohibition against conversing or eating with the Jews.  No priest shall set money out at interest or take unfair profit or be friendly or sociable with Jews; nor should anyone take food or drink with the Jews; for if this was decreed by the holy apostles, it is incumbent upon the faithful to obey their command; and the synod shall excommunicate any one who does not comply with this order.”

 

Pope Eugene IV: “We decree and order that from now on, and for all time, Christians shall not eat or drink with the Jews, nor admit them to feasts, nor cohabit with them, nor bathe with them. […]  They cannot live among Christians, but in a certain street, separated and segregated from Christians, and outside which they cannot under any pretext have houses.”

 

Pope Alexander III: “Our ways of life and those of the Jews are utterly different, and Jews will easily pervert the souls of simple folk to their superstition and unbelief if such folk are living in continual and intimate intercourse with them.” (Ad Haec)

Pope Saint Pius V: “Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers.” (Hebraeorum Gens)

 

Pope Benedict XIV: “Furthermore, by means of their particular practice of commerce, they amass a great store of money and then by an exorbitant rate of interest utterly destroy the wealth and inheritance of Christians.” (A Quo Primum)

 

Pope Clement VIII: “All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit.  They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor. […]  Their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live.”

 

Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Ecumenical Lateran Council: “The more the Christian religion is restrained from usurious practices, so much the more does the perfidy of the Jews grow in these matters, so that within a short time they are exhausting the resources of the Christians.  Wishing therefore to see that Christians are not savagely oppressed by Jews in this matter, we ordain by this synodal decree that if Jews in the future, on any pretext, extort oppressive and excessive interest from Christians, then they are to be removed from contact with Christians until they have made adequate satisfaction for the immoderate burden.  Christians too, if need be, shall be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, without the possibility of an appeal, to abstain from commerce with them.  We enjoin upon princes, not to be hostile to Christians on this account, but rather to be zealous in restraining Jews from so great oppression.”

Pope Innocent III: “When Jews are admitted out of pity into familiar intercourse with Christians, they repay their hosts, according to the popular proverb, after the fashion of the rat hidden in the sack, or the snake in the bosom, or of the burning brand in one’s lap.”

 

Pope Gregory IX: “Ungrateful for favours and forgetful of benefits, the Jews return insult for kindness and impious contempt for goodness.” (Epistle to the Hierarchy of Germany)

 

Pope Stephen III: “With great sorrow and mortal anxiety, We have heard that the Jews have in a Christian land the same rights as Christians, that Christian men and women live under the same roof with these traitors and defile their souls day and night with blasphemies.” (Epistle to the Bishop of Norbonne)

 

Pope Innocent IV: “The wicked perfidy of the Jews - from whose hearts Our Saviour did not remove the veil because of their enormous crimes but caused them justly to continue in their blindness, commit acts of shame which engender astonishment in those who hear, and terror in those who discover it.” (The Wicked Perfidy of the Jews)

 

Pope Saint Gregory the Great: “Furthermore, I must tell you that I have been led to praise God the more for your work by what I have learnt from the report of my most beloved son Probinus the presbyter; namely that, your Excellency having issued a certain ordinance against the perfidy of the Jews, those to whom it related attempted to bend the rectitude of your mind by offering a sum of money; which your Excellency scorned, and, seeking to satisfy the judgment of Almighty God, preferred innocence to gold.” (Epistle to Rechared, King of the Visigoths)

 

Pope Saint Gregory VII: “We exhort your Royal Majesty [King Alfonse VI of Castile], not to further tolerate, that the Jews rule Christians and have power over them.  For to allow that Christians are subordinated to Jews and are delivered to their whims, means to oppress the Church of God, means to revile Christ himself.” (Regesta IX. 2)

 

Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Ecumenical Lateran Council: “They shall not appear in public at all on the days of lamentation and on passion Sunday; because some of them on such days, as we have heard, do not blush to parade in very ornate dress and are not afraid to mock Christians who are presenting a memorial of the most sacred passion and are displaying signs of grief.  What we most strictly forbid however, is that they dare in any way to break out in derision of the Redeemer.”

 

Pope Gregory IX: “We order all our brother bishops absolutely to suppress the blasphemy of Jews in your dioceses, churches, and communities, so that they do not dare raise their necks, bent under eternal slavery, to revile the Redeemer.”

 

Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Ecumenical Lateran Council: “We therefore renew in this canon, on account of the boldness of the offenders, what the Council of Toledo providently decreed in this matter: we forbid Jews to be appointed to public offices, since under cover of them they are very hostile to Christians.”

 

Pope Saint Gregory I: “It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day.  What else can I call these but preachers of Antichrist, who, when he comes, will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work.  For, because he pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be had in reverence; and, because he compels the people to judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed.” (Epistles, Book XIII:1)

 

 

 

Pope Innocent IV: “We who long with all our hearts for the salvation of souls, grant you full authority by these present letters to banish the Jews, either in your own person or through the agency of others, especially since, as we have been informed, they do not abide by the regulations drawn up for them by this Holy See.” (To the King of France)

 

Pope Saint Pius V: “The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death.  Their godlessness has assumed such forms that, for the salvation of our own people, it becomes necessary to prevent their disease.  Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers; and the most damaging aspect of the matter is that they allure the unsuspecting through magical incantations, superstition, and witchcraft to the Synagogue of Satan and boast of being able to predict the future.  We have carefully investigated how this revolting sect abuses the name of Christ and how harmful they are to those whose life is threatened by their deceit.  On account of these and other serious matters, and because of the gravity of their crimes which increase day to day more and more, We order that, within 90 days, all Jews in our entire earthly realm of justice - in all towns, districts, and places - must depart these regions. After this time limit shall all at the present or in the future, who dwell or wander into that city or other already mentioned, be affected, their property confiscated and handed over to the Siscus, and they shall becomes slaves of the Roman Church, live in perpetual servitude and the Roman Church shall have the same rights over them as the remaining [worldly] lords over slaves and property.” (Hebraeorum Gens)

 

Christians agreed with the Church and the Jews were expelled in the following instances.

 

 1.  250: Carthage;

 

 2.  415: Alexandria;

 

 3.  554: Diocese of Clement (France);

 

 4.  561: Diocese of Uzzes (France);

 

 5.  612: Visigoth Spain;

 

 6.  642: Visigoth Empire;

 

 7.  855: Italy;

 

 8.  876: Sens;

 

 9. 1012: Mayence;

 

10. 1181: France;

 

11. 1290: England;

 

12. 1306: France;

 

13. 1348: Switzerland;

 

14. 1349: Hielbronn (Germany);

 

15. 1349: Hungary;

 

16. 1388: Strasbourg;

 

17. 1394: Germany;

 

18. 1394: France;

 

19. 1422: Austria;

 

20. 1424: Fribourg & Zurich;

 

21. 1426: Cologne;

 

22. 1432: Savory;

 

23. 1438: Mainz;

 

24. 1439: Augsburg;

 

25. 1446: Bavaria;

 

26. 1453: Franconis;

 

27. 1453: Breslau;

 

28. 1454: Wurzburg;

 

29. 1485: Vincenza (Italy);

 

30. 1492: Spain;

 

31. 1495: Lithuania;

 

32. 1497: Portugal;

 

33. 1499: Germany;

 

34. 1514: Strasbourg;

 

35. 1519: Regensburg;

 

36. 1540: Naples;

 

37. 1542: Bohemia;

 

38. 1550: Genoa;

 

39. 1551: Bavaria;

 

40. 1555: Pesaro;

 

41. 1559: Austria;

 

42. 1561: Prague;

 

43. 1567: Wurzburg;

 

44. 1569: Papal States;

 

45. 1571: Brandenburg;

 

46. 1582: Netherlands;

 

47. 1593: Brandenburg, Austria;

 

48. 1597: Cremona, Pavia & Lodi;

 

49. 1614: Frankfort;

 

50. 1615: Worms;

 

51. 1619: Kiev;

 

52. 1649: Ukraine;

 

53. 1654: Little Russia;

 

54. 1656: Lithuania;

 

55. 1669: Oran (North Africa);

 

56. 1670: Vienna;

 

57. 1712: Sandomir;

 

58. 1727: Russia;

 

59. 1738: Wurtemburg;

 

60. 1740: Little Russia;

 

61. 1744: Bohemia;

 

62. 1744: Livonia;

 

63. 1745: Moravia;

 

64. 1753: Kovad (Lithuania);

 

65. 1761: Bordeaux;

 

66. 1772: Jews deported to the Pale of Settlement (Russia);

 

67. 1775: Warsaw;

 

68. 1789: Alace;

 

69. 1804: Villages in Russia;

 

70. 1808: Villages & Countrysides (Russia);

 

71. 1815: Lubeck & Bremen;

 

72. 1815: Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria;

 

73. 1820: Bremes;

 

74. 1843: Russian Border, Austria & Prussia;

 

75. 1862: Area in the U. S. under Grant's Jurisdiction;

 

76. 1866: Galatz, Romania;

 

77. 1919: Bavaria (foreign born Jews);

 

78. 1938-45: Nazi Controlled Areas;

 

79. 1948: Arab Countries.

[MamaB]

I believe it because of my faith in the Word of God. His word is faithful and true. I think some of y’all are grasping at straws.

[metmom]

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

Nobody is defending or in denial about Luther.

When he was wrong, we've admitted it and condemned him for it.

Unlike the response of Catholics to their popes and priests.

It seems to me Protestants/Evangelicals/Other are compelled to defend Luther for these reasons:

We're not compelled to defend him for any reason.

He did not start my *religion*. I don't belong to a *religion* and whatever Luther happened to have believed has no bearing on what I believe.

I could not care less what he advocated for. I applaud him for exposing the corruption of Catholicism at the time and demanding some moral integrity within the Catholic hierarchy, but that was not a popular move within Catholicism, so they castigated and ex-communicated him for it.

Let me repeat for about the bazillionth time.

Nobody *follows* Luther. He is NOT our *pope*, not our human leader.

That his theology and mine at times are the same, is irrelevant. It's certainly not because I follow him, but because by using the same Scripture, the Holy Spirit led born again believer will come to the same conclusions about passages in the Bible as each other.