"If Martin Luther was born today would he try to reform the Catholic or Lutheran faith?"
Here was my response which didnt immediately post on the site:
Luther would put on sackcloth and ashes, and crawl on his knees to St. Peter's in Rome to repent and submit to the magisterium of the Catholic Church if here were here today.
Both Luther and Calvin had a vision of a changed Church, but still their vision was of a SINGLE changed Church. They would be absolutlely horrified to see what has become of their reform. In no way would they stomach for a moment the thousands of sects that claim the authority of Scripture Alone. In the past few hundred years, Protestantism has largely ceased to even pretend that the Church needs to be one entity with one authoritative hierarchy. Luther would have had a fit at that idea! Seeing the reforms of the counter-reformation, the never ending division and discord of Protestantism, and the continuing unity and faithfulness of the Catholic Church, I truly believe Luther would not even hesitate to swim the Tiber. (Actually being a Catholic, he would just need to recant and go to confession to have his excommunication lifted). I also think he would be won over to Catholicism primarilly by the obvious and spectacular failure of his "pillar" Sola Scriptura. The division and heresy he may have seen in germ form (think anabaptists) which resulted from sola scriptura are now so blindingly clear after 500 years of ever increasing fragmentation that as for the first pillar, Luther would likely choose to read Sola Fide in a Catholic friendly way as Benedict XVI has suggested, but as for the other pillar, he would find no way of ignoring the evidence of history that Sola Scriptura has been anything but a spectacular implosion of failure.
I say all of this as someone who was a flaming Reformed Protestant 2 years ago. I have read Luther, and my heritage is LCMS. A year ago I discovered a site that took unity seriously and found my faith in Sola Scriptura had crumbled under the weight of the evidence and so I did the unthinkable.... I swam the Tiber. I felt Luther smiling down on me, and I feel he would have been crying right there with me as I submitted my heart and mind to Christ and His Church.
God bless any Christians who take the time to think about Christian unity in a serious way. I truly believe that the one option, Rome, will be the light at the end of that tunnel of questioning.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/
I'm not so sure. Links such as this show the Pretend Reformers saw the deep divisions already within their own lifetime, yet even this didn't cause them to repent. There is something about apostasy that hardens the sinner so much that they cannot repent, short of a miracle.
ReplyDeleteOf course, with Protestantism burning itself out right before our eyes, the Reformers living today would realize that 99.9% of Protestant clergy would never give Luther or Calvin godhood status and this alone would cause the Pretend Reformers to realize just how insane they were. The big secret among Protestants is that they'll never admit Luther and Calvin had a de facto status of Pope, and were they to criticize them would be an admission that maybe there are sinners in Protestantism as well.
Luther and Calvin, above all people, understood the danger of schism. I'm sure they believed the church was one, holy, catholic and apostolic. They probably never viewed themselves as schismatics but rather successors. And if they saw what their movement has done, they would repent and recant!
ReplyDeleteLuther looking down on your as you swam the Tiber? Dude, Marty may have been looking at you, but I suspect where he's at, he was looking up at you, screaming don't swim over to the very anti-Christ! LOL!
ReplyDeleteNice catch scotju. I should have said looking up, not down. Hopefully from purgatory though. We shall soon see.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad your church gives you the confidence to talk about the souls of people who have departed 500+ years ago. Down - Up - those are meaningless positions designed to make you feel better about your own tenuous grasp of the divine.
ReplyDeletePerhaps if you spent most of your life living as a monk, you might be in a better position to judge the departed... or at least learn that such judgment is saved for God alone.
RMBIV, none of us here have, to the best of my knowledge, supernatural discernment of hearts. However, Martin Luther's lifetime public utterances about the church, scriptures, and private and public personalities are filled with hatred, mockery, pornography, libel and slander. I think it's a pretty safe bet, unless somebody can produce some document that proves he recanted before he died, that Marty will be inhaling brimstone fumes for a long, long, time!
ReplyDeleteI get it - in the realms of hell it is the devil on the throne, with Judas on his right and Luther on his left.
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is, you can find hatred, mockery, libel and slander, here on this very blog. They aren't unique to Luther. The only problem with Luther is that he isn't "your guy".
In fact, you can find all those things you listed amongst popes. To assume that only Luther is "sucking brimstone" is very arrogant. I don't claim to have supernatural discernment either, but at the very least I can refrain from making statements about the eternal souls of the long dead.
The Orthodox have it right on this one... "Lord have mercy". The fate of his soul is unknown as far as you are concerned, leave it at that - lest you want to be guilty of slander, libel, hatred and mockery (with a dash of porn for good measure).
Oh that's right... doesn't the RC auto-pardon making fun of Luther? I'm pretty sure that is in a cannon somewhere. At the very least, it is OK to kill him and his followers cause they are all filthy heretics.
"I'm glad your church gives you the confidence to talk about the souls of people who have departed 500+ years ago."
ReplyDeleteAs for me Bob, my original post said he was looking down (which tracks with my hope for him to be in heaven) and my alteration in the comments moderates it to my hope for him to be in purgatory, which is one and the same with my hope that he wil one day be in heaven. No one knows where he is/will be, not even you.
As for myself, I expect to be in purgatory. Luther was personally excommunicated from the Church. For me to say he has the hope of heaven is quite generous. I hope he will be there, and you, and me, and everybody. But neither tradition or scripture leaves any room for more certainty than that. And you have not heard anyone here proclaim anyones fate with certainty.
Anyway, you seem to have missed to main point again and got sidetracked with personal stuff. My main point was to say that Luther would be appaled at evangelicalism and modern proterstantism in general. I an QUITE confident you would agree.
"The Orthodox have it right on this one... "Lord have mercy"."
Huh? why is that an Orthodox thing? Catholics say the Kyrie Eleison (literally "Lord have mercy")at every single mass. We also BEAT OUR BREAST at every single mass and say mea culpa (my fault) as we ask forgiveness for our great sin. If you knew more about the mass and the divine liturgy you would not make such strange comments.
"The only problem with Luther is that he isn't "your guy"."
ReplyDeleteYeah dude, that's the only reason we have a problem with Luther. It has nothing to do with theology at all.
How much of Luther have you read Bob? Can you name what the formal and material causes of the reformation are without Google?
I have a lot of respect for Luther in his early days, much less in his later days. I have read Bainton's biography multiple times, read the Bondage of the Will, and researched Luther to a decent degree. (RC Sproul loves Luther, and I learned Reformed Theology from Sproul) So it is just silly to say that I dont like Luther because he's "not on my team" or some nonsense. Luther had some good points, but I think he went off the rails. It is sad. And even he was sad that the Church was divided late in his life. He himself knew it was scandalous. All I am saying is that if he were here now, those feelings of regret would be intensified.
The orthodox (at least on the forum I frequent) say "lord have mercy" when someone who does not belong to the orthodox faith dies. They say something different when it is one of their own. The point I'm trying to make is that they don't attempt judgment, even for the most egregious of sinners.
ReplyDeleteI think my "on who's team" remark is right on. It's all "welcome home brother" when their going in the door, but when they are (voluntarily or not) leaving - their pretty much the devil themselves.
I think my "on who's team" remark is right on. It's all "welcome home brother" when their going in the door, but when they are (voluntarily or not) leaving - their pretty much the devil themselves.”
ReplyDeleteNot true Bob. There are multiple people who I have interacted with on this blog, in private email, and elsewhere who have considered Catholicism and either backed off or went somewhere else that I do not think of in a bad way at all. It is all about the reasons they give. You are the outlier of potential converts though. You managed to come close to converting, even telling me what Catholic parish you would probably end up at, and telling me that on the authority issue the Catholic Church “appears to be correct”, yet a few days later calling the pope the antichrist and talking about obilisks, sex abuse, Koran kissing, and warning me I am in a cult. Your reasoning is on the level of conspiracy theory at best. You have not shown you understand any of the Catholic doctrines you denounce, yet still give some of the most ridiculous conspiracy type arguments against them.
I will give this comment as an example:
“I can articulate and reject the Roman Mass. The mass does several things, including lessening time in purgatory, and removing guilt.
The protestant position, as you know, is that purgatory doesn't exist, and that Christs death on the cross pays the penalties for sin.
The mass is a sacrifice. how that differs from a re-sacrifice (given the repetitive nature of the event) is semantics. If you want to believe that somehow the elements are "outside of time" so that you are participating in Calvary of the 1st century then you have a much higher threshold for believability than I do.
How to put David Meyer "back on course". First, I would ask you to think for yourself. Blind obedience is a sign of a cult.
Second, stop praying to Mary. There is tremendous power in the RCC, and tremendous power on those prayers to Mary. It is quite reasonable to believe that those powers are evil (evidence A would be the evil that the RCC does throughout history, evidence B would be it's easy assimilation of Pagan customs and rituals). This focus on Mary is akin to worshiping Hera (who had renewing virginity, and was called queen of heaven) or any one of the other female goddesses of the ancient world. Many fervent pagans have prayed to virginal queens of heaven.
Third, start looking at the art work. Almost everything is a symbol. The "all seeing eye", obelisks, eight part circles, goofy double pointed hats - all have roots in pagan cultures and gods. Do you honestly believe that the True God would be content to assimilate the worship of false gods?”
I love the “double pointed hats” part! WTF are you smoking dude! Is this seriously supposed to qualify as a real argument against the Catholic Church? It is one thing to have some humor (like my Tebow post) but you have consistently shown your unwillingness to engage in a real discussion beyond Koran kissing, pedophilia, obelisks and pointy hats. Like I said before, go ahead and reject Catholicism, but don’t do so thinking you have done it for good reasons. BTW, you are the only person I know of (who has considered and rejected) I would say that about. And of course I wish it weren’t so, and am ready any time you are to move beyond the pointy hat style discussion with you.
By the way Bob, I hope you look into becoming Eastern Orthodox and do so if you believe Catholicism is evil. Catholics believe them to have all 7 sacraments and to be true Churches, so it would be a step up for you (imo).
ReplyDeleteJust know that many of the things you thought were idolatrous and a sign of the devil's handiwork about Catholicism the Orhtodox do just as much as we Catholics. Praying the the Theotokos (Mary) would be chief among them. And as far as praying to saints and using images... oh boy. They should spike your "cult" meter off the scale. My point is that nearly everything you hated about Catholicism is present in Orthodoxy, so if you decide to go Orthodox, keep that in mind.
RMBIV, I'm aware of the bad popes. However, Their is a big differance between them and Luther. Luther rejected the faith and taught Heresy in his offical capacity as a Protestant minister. None of our bad popes, ever taught heresy in acting in their offical capacity as pope.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the magisterium of the church, (the pope, the written and oral traditions) have preversed the deposist of faith from 33AD to now. Your Protestant churches have never been able to agree on anything without compromising whatever Christianity they had. Look at the WCC and the NCC. Throughly liberal! You (and your church) may not be members of these liberal bodies, but the history of Protestantism shows that all Protestant churches go liberal sooner or later. After all, if one believe in sola scriptura, the liberal interpetation is good as the conservative one.
I'll take it for granted that one of the bad popes may have "taught" Heresy from the pulpit (see filoque for the Orthodox opinion of that statement), but there are several who lived Heretical lives. Both are examples of teaching.
ReplyDeleteAs for joining the Orthodox movement... not likely. I do find their beliefs fascinating (same with Catholics) and I think that there is room to play one side off the other. To be honest, I think both sides are wrong.
As with any world view, the more you embrace it, the more it sucks you in. As I said before, there is power in those faith systems. I'm not convinced that the power is a good power.
Steve, I disagree with your argument about sola scriptura. It paints a very simplistic picture of people and their beliefs. Do you agree by extension that all socialists become communists, all libertarians become anarchists, and all conservatives become fascists?
Conversely, did Christ only die for the (conservative) catholic? Is the liberal protestant abandoned because of a disagreement with the magesterium? Surely the Catholics realize that they can't corner the market on Christs blood. At the very least, the Orthodox should be a witness to that fact - and by extension, your Protestant friends.
But isn't that what the papacy is all about? If you own the means to salvation, then the whole world will work for you. What has more value than your eternal soul? It is kind of like the Apple of religions... your locked in and every other product is inferior or a copy.
David, how many other friends have you actually had consider and reject Catholicism? What are their reasons? Why is one person's reasons more valid than another? I have an interest in symbols, history, ancient religions. How those things are present in Catholicism are meaningful.
"David, how many other friends have you actually had consider and reject Catholicism?"
ReplyDeleteIncluding you, there are 5 that I have conversed with on this blog or through email. You are the only one who rejected it for uber-lame reasons.
"What are their reasons?"
Various. Everyones story is different. Some counted the cost and it was too great (would lose a job), some would have had family dificulty, some chose Orthodoxy, some were just not convinced enough and are still researching. But like I said, you are the outlier in that your reasoning is consistently conspiratorial and "straw man" style reasoning. Your last comment did it again when you said a pope's personal life equated with teaching heresy. And thre pointy hat and obelisk stuff speaks for itself.
"Why is one person's reasons more valid than another?"
A person who understands what they are rejecting has more valid reasoning. This means explaining and understanding position X in a way that an adherent of position X would agree with.
Example:
Have you ever met an atheist who rejects Christianity because of the genocide under Joshua? The person (usually) is simply refusing to see things from the Christian/Jewish perspective first before he rejects that perspective. Same when they throw out the rapid fire complaints about talking donkeys, Jonahs whale, stoning for certain crimes, etc. The Christian often comes away thinking "they really just dont understand what I believe, and dont seem to want to."
It is a frustrating situation, because the person seems to be rejecting a caricature of Christianity, and not the real thing.
Not all non-believers are like that though. Their reasoning may still be flawed from our perspective, but their rejection of Jesus has been well considered and they can give reasons for their rejection without resorting to Balaams donkey.
From what I can tell, you do not understand Catholicism sufficiently to reject it. This is the case because you consistently misrepresent what Catholicism itself actually teaches, and in addition you consistently resort to goofy straw men and conspiracy stuff (timelessnes of the mass/naughty popes/crusades/inquisition/second commandment/obelisks/koran kissing/praying to saints)
The Catholic position on these issues are either misrepresented by you and then attacked (stawman), or your complaint is either irrelevant (naughty popes), blatently incorrect propaganda (the Catholic conspiracy of the second commandment) or just plain Kookyness worthy of fundamentalists (pointy hats and obelisks)
And when I answer you, often you just move on to the next thing with no appology, as you did with the second commandment thing. You would think pointing out that Lutherans have the same commandment order as Catholics would get you to say "oops, guess I was wrong, I guess Catholics didnt remove it", but nope. This leads me to believe you do not desire to actually understand what Catholics believe.
Continued...
...Continued
ReplyDeleteAnd you have multiple times now accused me of having blind faith in a cult etc. That is laughable. I have been in 2 major branches of Protestantism in my life both of which I studied extensively and believed wholeheartedly. I have been Reformed and can explain what that means.
From what I can tell, you were born Reformed and that is why you were Reformed. Now there is not necessarily anything wrong with that if you know why/what you believe, but don't tell me that I blindly obey anyone when I give REASONS for why I believe. I may be wrong, but I am not blind. That accusation is almost the definition of a ad hominem argument.
Even now as a Catholic, I can nearly guarantee I am more knowledgeable than you about what Reformed theology teaches. I went into Catholicism with eyes wide open, and they remain open. Your accusation of me being blind is, as far as I can tell a "whoever smelt it dealt it" sort of accusation. You base your religious belief on shakey proposition XYZ, so you think everyone else must also. But that is not the case. I dont think I was blind as a Pentecostal, or as a Reformed, and I am not now. I moved from Pentecostal to Reformed when some of the "strawmen" about Reformed theology were broken down. And I STILL think they were strawmen! I dont want anyone to reject Reformed Theology because they believe strawmen, and same for Catholicism. You seem to wish to dwell in that land of straw however.
Here in this thread, you are the only one who has brought up pointy hats (twice). I simply held and defended the position that the state of Luther's soul is an unknowable mystery, and should be treated as such - perhaps with a little bit of charity - instead of backhand remarks about sucking brimstone.
ReplyDeleteI also pointed out that Luthers sinful nature isn't any different from any of ours, that your popes have acted much worse than Luther ever did, and that mocking him is hypocritical. The reason you mock him (say as opposed to pope Alexander VI, a most wretched human being) is because he isn't on your team.
As for being conspiratorial, I'm guilty as charged. Look at the world we live in - there are people pulling the strings in the political, economic, and medical worlds (just to name a few). Why should I assume that someone isn't pulling the "religious" strings as well? And guess which religious leaders have pulled the most strings to shape history around the globe? I'll give you a hint, it isn't the Lutherans.
You may see all that manipulation as good. I tend to be wary of coercive actions, no matter who is involved.
I'll give you an example - the Roman Catholic church caused the Mayan language to be lost for 300 years. This was done through the killing of their scribes, and destroying all their books. Disagree with the Mayan beliefs (I do), but it would never cross my mind to destroy their heritage. It was done in the name of the Catholic church - in Christs name.
Not surprising given the history though. A quote from Innocent III in 1201: "He who is lead to Christianity by violence, by fear, and by torture, and who receives the sacrament of baptism to avoid harm receives indeed the stamp of Christianity... and must be duly constrained to abide by the faith that he had accepted by force"
Catholicism's problems go beyond pointy hats. It is a coercive organization that often uses force against heretics. You may have submitted willingly, but many don't. I fear that my friend might become an agent of force against his heretic friend. History is on my side for that one.
"The reason you mock him (say as opposed to pope Alexander VI, a most wretched human being) is because he isn't on your team."
ReplyDeleteOnce again you are wrong. Alexander VI never taught heresy, LUTHER DID. Btw, I mock Alexander VI all the time. He was a POS. But he was not excommunicated for preaching heresy... Luther was, and unrepentantly so.
So it is not that one is on "my team" and one is not, it is that one is an unrepentant heretic and one is not. Your insistence that it is all about who is on whos team is just an obvious ad hominem by focusing on my motivations rather than the substance of what was said.
"Catholicism's problems go beyond pointy hats. It is a coercive organization that often uses force against heretics. You may have submitted willingly, but many don't."
BS. Any example you can give me, I can give you 2 from the same era in history where Protestants did the same exact things. So it is not a problem with Catholicism per-se. Replace the word "Catholicism" in the above quote with "Protestantism" and ask yourself the question. What is your answer? Probably that it is a dumb question right? Well thats how I feel. I dont find the fact that Queen Elizabeth brutally murdered a heap of Catholics to be a good argument against Protestantism, and you shouldnt find similar abuses by Catholics an argument against Catholicism. Yet oh my... you certainly do.
As for you horrible misquote (you left out from the middle of the quote a huge section that is quite pertinent), let me clear that up for you. The very next line after your quote is:
"HOWEVER, he who has never consented, but has altogether opposed it, has received neither the stamp nor the purpose, for it is better to object expressly than to manifest the slightest consent. ..."
The quote also starts off with some context:
"Assuredly, it is contrary to the Christian faith that one who is unwilling and totally opposed to [being baptized] be constrained to adopt and observe Christianity. For this reason, some make a distinction, which is valid, between those who are unwilling and those who are constrained."
So it is only those who have consented with a conditional will to be baptised that can then be "constrained to abide the faith", but those who were baptised without consent can not even be considered baptised! I disagree with nothing in this Papal Bull. Rock on pope Innocent III! Way to preach the faith of the apostles!
I will post the full quote in a second comment so as not to lead any viewers of this combox astray with your misquote.
"I'll give you an example - the Roman Catholic church caused the Mayan language to be lost for 300 years. This was done through the killing of their scribes, and destroying all their books."
Boo. Frickin. Hoo.
Even if the Catholic Church did that, I would cheer their conquest of the human sacrificing devils all the way. (Apocalypto is in my top ten films) But alas it was the Spanish who did it.
Another *great* reason to hate Catholicism though. I will add "Mayans" to my list between "Koran kissing" and "Obilisks". Real home run there bro.
From Papal Bull on Forced Baptisms (1201)
ReplyDelete"Assuredly, it is contrary to the Christian faith that one who is unwilling and totally opposed to [being baptized] be constrained to adopt and observe Christianity. For this reason, some make a distinction, which is valid, between those who are unwilling and those who are constrained. It is thus that he who is led to Christianity by violence, by fear, and by torture, and who receives the sacrament of baptism to avoid harm (even as he who comes falsely to baptism), receives indeed the stamp of Christianity and can be obliged to observe the Christian faith, even as he who expresses a conditional will, although in absolute terms he is unwilling. It is in this fashion that the decree of the Council of Toledo must be understood, which stated that those who previously had been forced to become Christians, as was done in the time of the most pious Prince Sisebut, and their association with the divine sacraments having been established, by the grace of the baptism received, they themselves having been anointed by the holy oil and having participated in the body of the Lord, must be duly constrained to abide by the faith they had accepted by force. However, he who has never consented, but has altogether opposed it, has received neither the stamp nor the purpose, for it is better to object expressly than to manifest the slightest consent. ..."
http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/263-pope-innocent-iii-on-the-jews-and-forced-baptisms-1199-and-1201
Bob,
ReplyDeleteIf you were to ask any Catholic around here why the are Catholic, a lot of them (including myself) would say, "Because the Bible solidly teaches Catholicism and nothing else." And all of them will tell you that once you start taking an honest look at things, the only options left on the table are agnosticism and Catholicism (polar opposites, btw).
I've been in apologetics long enough to have a good idea of where people are coming from, and you're the type that cuts and pastes from anti-Catholic sites without regard for context/accuracy. Please avoid doing that if you want us to take you seriously.
Here is an older post I made on the Luther issue which I think is appropriate here. This is not to bash Lutherans (or Protestants in general), but I'm always amazed at the deity status Luther is given by them, while all the while they cringe at certain things he taught.
ReplyDeleteSeriously: what would it take for them to realize how dangerous and off the wall Luther and his ideology was?
And let's not forget this is the same movement that abhors the out of control and unchecked "Papacy". But the question is: what doctrine did the Papacy ever assert that came anywhere near the 'cringe level' of Luther's extreme claims? That's the question they wont ask/answer.
Some of the most significant errors Luther taught which would make most Lutherans blush or cringe:
(1) Double Predestination, and more extreme than Calvin;
(2) That Jesus endured hellfire as He took the Father's Wrath;
(3) Radically and subjectively judged the canonicity of various OT and NT books;
(4) That certain views on the Sacraments were damnable heresies and even worthy of death penalty;
(5) Exercised stronger and more radical ecclesial authority than virtually any Christian in history;
(6) That he had a notoriously filthy mouth, unbecoming of a true Saint or true Christian Reformer who had tight reign on their passions.
What Christian in history ever came anywhere close to this? Is this the type of 'father figure' that one is to be proud of? To me, Lutherans accepting Luther as a hero is akin to Catholics canonizing a priest who molested children - such simply cannot be done.
The only answer is that there is a lot of white-washing of history on the Protestant end, such that most Protestants, especially Lutherans, have no idea about the 'real' Luther - just like how most women going for an abortion don't get the chance at an ultrasound - because if they did, they'd run away.
Nick, your points 1 and 2 were some of the the reasons I liked Luther quite a bit as a Calvinist. Luther would not even be a Lutheran most likely were he alive today. (Although his views on the sacraments would prevent him form being Reformed methinks)
ReplyDeleteHis succesor Phillip Melanchthon is more what we would see as a "Lutheran" as far as I know. Luther's book "the Bondage of the Will" is, as the title implies, quite "Calvinistic" in its view of human freedom. That book was very influential on me.
"If you were to ask any Catholic around here why the are Catholic, a lot of them (including myself) would say, "Because the Bible solidly teaches Catholicism and nothing else." And all of them will tell you that once you start taking an honest look at things, the only options left on the table are agnosticism and Catholicism (polar opposites, btw)."
ReplyDeleteI would expect nothing less - and would expect the same from a protestant (insert protestant, or orthodox, instead of Catholic). Your comment about agnosticism turns a blind eye to all the non-Catholic bible-believing Christians out there. It paints a false dichotomy (All the A's I know say that your choice is either A or B). Sorry, that is just false. To quote you "Please avoid doing that if you want us to take you seriously."
"I've been in apologetics long enough to have a good idea of where people are coming from, and you're the type that cuts and pastes from anti-Catholic sites without regard for context/accuracy. Please avoid doing that if you want us to take you seriously."
If I understand you correctly, I'm supposed to argue against Catholics without being anti-Catholic. Would you expect me to do the same against Mormons and Muslims?
I'm not about to grant you the catholic interpretation and catholic paradigm. Depending on which foundation you start from, you end up with different answers.
Catholics begin with a very narrow interpretation of the word rock, and end up with the papal regime. It flows logically, and the assumptions and behavior are right in line with the interpretation. I find the behavior deplorable - and the source of that is a faulty foundation, built on the wrong rock.
Let me see if I can sum up that papal bull. "It is not OK to force baptize. You can use harm, fear, and torture to determine if someone is 'constrained' - or merely just 'objecting'. If they are just 'objecting', then baptize them... but if they are 'constrained' (whatever that means) then don't - just hand them over to the state to be killed."
"To me, Lutherans accepting Luther as a hero is akin to Catholics canonizing a priest who molested children - such simply cannot be done."
Yet, you can select a pope involved in covering up child predators:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-catholics-its-you-this-pope-has-abused-2074029.html
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Lutheran, or one of his cheer leaders. All I've been asking for is a bit more charity towards someone who has been dead for 500 years. Have you said your Hail Mary for the "sucking brimstone" remark?
"Let me see if I can sum up that papal bull. "It is not OK to force baptize. You can use harm, fear, and torture to determine if someone is 'constrained' - or merely just 'objecting'. If they are just 'objecting', then baptize them... but if they are 'constrained' (whatever that means) then don't - just hand them over to the state to be killed.""
ReplyDeleteYou again, AGAIN, completely misrepresent (as in totally opposite) the bull in question. The bull clearly and unambiguously said it is NEVER ok to force baptism, yet you say it is saying the OPPOSITE. I encourage any observers to read the portion of the bull which is available in these comments and see for themselves how horribly you have lied about what it says. I say "lied" because tyou have already been corrected. You may have simply been mistaken at first when you pulled the hacked and shredded quote from whatever site you found it on, but after I corrected you it is just lying to still say the bull supported forced baptisms.
You AGAIN also misrepresent the Catholic position on the "rock" in Matt. I have corrected you a number of times, but you refuse to listen.
It is not a matter of disagreement Bob, it is a matter of you repeatedly stating objective facts incorrectly. Catholics simply do not believe what you say they believe. The papacy does not depend on how rock is interpreted, yet you continue to tell Catholics that that is what they believe. Catholics may be wrong about the papacy, but they do not base it on what you say they base it on.
It is as if you repeatedly are telling a Mormon that he worships Joseph Smith. He may be wrong Bob, but if HE HIMSELF IS TELLING YOU that he does not worship Joseph Smith, and yet you continue to state it as a fact, then you are the one who is in the wrong. That kind of behavior in an argument prohibits any real diologue.
I wont delete your comment because you continue to prove my point about your style of discussion and what you find to be convincing evidence.
The link about Benedict XVI: Seriously?
If you ever want to discus Catholic/Protestant issues without the straw men and laughably bad arguments, I will be waiting.
Or you could keep making a fool of yourself with the whole South Park style of interaction you seem to love.
RMBIV, you say I should show some charity toward Luther. Sorry, my charity goes to the people he and his disciples have deceived in the last 500 years. Marty had had whole life after 1517 to accept the charity of the Catholic faith and it's people. He rejected that charity with filthy, angry, blasphemous words and actions. I was a convert to the WELS kind of Lutheranism, and during that time a read a lot of Luther and a lot about Luther. What I read turned me away from him and Protestantism forever. The Protestants deliberately cover up the real Luther and the real Calvin because they know the real thing wold appall decent people. We Catholics, in the long run, have always recorded and made public even the worst of our history, so we can learn from our mistakes. The Protestants won't learn a thing from their history because they cover it up or ignore it. As a result, Protestantism is is shrinking more and more every year. The liberalism that Luther introduced into his 'rediscovered gospel' has slowly poisoned and killed whatever Christian faith that was in Protestantism in the first place. When they celebrate the so-called Reformation in 2017, it will probably be more of a funeral than a celebration.
ReplyDelete"It is in this fashion that the decree of the Council of Toledo must be understood, which stated that those who previously had been forced to become Christians, as was done in the time of the most pious Prince Sisebut, and their association with the divine sacraments having been established, by the grace of the baptism received, they themselves having been anointed by the holy oil and having participated in the body of the Lord, must be duly constrained to abide by the faith they had accepted by force."
ReplyDeleteDude, the papal bull clearly says that this group of guys were forced-baptized by some 'pious Prince Sisebut'. They are now expected to 'abide by the faith'. According to this bull, that sort of activity is cool. YOU are the one trying to make it say something it isn't. And I know what happens to heretics from that time period - they were either killed directly by the Roman Catholic Church, or handed over to the state for death, with the inquisition's evidence as the proof of guilt.
As for Ratzinger, either he was covering it up, or he wasn't. Here are the facts:
1.Ratzinger is now a pope
2.Catholics are coming forward claiming he covered it up
3.writings have been leaked indicating he covered it up
4.Priests were moved from one area to another, molesting in various parishes.
all this, and your response is "seriously?"
Back to your Bull. I resent that you call me a liar. I've read the bull several times, and my understanding has not been refuted by you. Instead, all I have is accusations from you (of being a liar), and a refusal to pick up the issue.
As for the papacy depending on rock - indeed it does. If it didn't, you'd probably be orthodox. There are interpretations of rock that lend themselves to a protestant view. Every time I look for "proof texts" of the RC position, it always comes back to Matt 16:18. is the rock Peter, Peter and his successors, his confession, just a play on words?
If the word rock isn't what you base the papacy on, what do you base it on? Surely not itself. If Matt 16:18 wasn't in the Bible, the whole argument for the papacy would crumble (probably into orthodoxy).
"When they celebrate the so-called Reformation in 2017, it will probably be more of a funeral than a celebration."
ReplyDeleteI assume your referencing shrinking Protestant numbers?
Lets see - 500 years ago there were 0 Protestants. Today, between 500 and 800 million. Perhaps in the last 1/2 century there has been a decline, but hardly enough to celebrate a "funeral".
If anything, couldn't we have said the same thing 500 years ago when the first protestants broke away from the Roman Catholic church? Surely the RC's numbers suffered as a result, it would be uncharitable of us to call that the "end" of Catholicism, and say things like "you'll be celebrating the death of your faith in 5 years". The shoe doesn't fit so well does it?
If anything (assuming yours assertion is correct) this is similar to reading temperature charts and crying "global warming". There isn't enough data, and the data that does exist is ripe for manipulation by whoever wants to score a few points.
We could spend some time and look at the religion that is doing the best in the world right now (ISLAM) and have some sort of Christian / Catholic dialogue about that problem - but I guess it is much more fun to jab at the Protestants.
Just an interesting tidbit: Catholicism grew incredibly during the Reformation. Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared to Juan Diego in 1531- smack in the middle of the Reformation. This event converted literally millions in a time when there werent that many millions of people.
ReplyDeleteNot that this PROVES anything, but for me it is one among many things that I find adding creedence to the Catholic side. The miraculous nature of the image also is quite amazing.