Posted on 07/01/2010 10:50:21 AM PDT by NYer
Ping!
“Each of these Catholic Reformers retained the unity of Christ’s Church, submitted to church leadership, and patiently brought about renewal”
Hypothetical: Would it be possible for the Roman Catholic Church to reach such a level of corruption that it was cut off or discarded by God?
No. The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).
Following your wording-No. Is there a level that would bring such action by God? Surely, but the Church cannot reach that level. The historical upwelling of reform from within is the what maintains the Church. God is working with fallible humans whom he has endowed with free will. He does not cut them off for small deviations or reparable corruption which is inevitably repaired.
“No. The Church is Christ’s bride”
No, that is not correct. The Gentile church can be “cut off” if they doesn’t stand fast - just like Israel was...
“Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.”
-Rom 11
“Otherwise you too will be cut off.”
ping to #6
Bookmark.
Upon this rock...the gates of hell shall not prevail, etc.
You wrote:
“Hypothetical: Would it be possible for the Roman Catholic Church to reach such a level of corruption that it was cut off or discarded by God?”
No. The Church comes from God. The Church is never corrupt - people in it often are, however.
You wrote:
“No, that is not correct. The Gentile church can be “cut off” if they doesn’t stand fast - just like Israel was...”
This is not the “Gentile church”. It is simply the Church. There are no gentiles or Jews in the Church - there are only Christians. And the Church cannot be cut off from God because it is from Christ.
Really? That's a bit hyperbolic. At the Diet of Worms, he said, "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (..), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."
Martin Luther was a flawed man, as are we all. All of the characters in this story are from a time long ago. But to condemn Luther because he didn't wallow in pig sh## while absolving his supposed betters of their arrogance is plain silly.
Stating that Martin Luther burned the Papal bull, while ignoring that Martin Luther's works were burned first. I'm not saying that Martin Luther was justified in burning the bull, just noting the double standard. Arrogance in the Catholic Church is accepted, expected, and justified.
Stating that Martin Luther was arrogant, while ignoring the fact that those at the Diet of Worms treated Martin Luther as a deviant child, ignored any attempt at reason, and gave anyone the legal right to kill Martin Luther without recourse.
My main problem with this whole article is the same as my problem with the Catholic Church. People at the top can be arrogant (even when they're wrong), but people on the bottom are to be subservient. The Catholic Church stinks of man's desire to have power over other men. It stinks of abuse of power. It stinks of the attitude that lower men should know their place.
The point of this article seems to be that reformers in the Catholic Church should tread carefully because those higher up in the church are arrogant and have a right to demand blind devotion without question or thought. I saw no regret or complaint about the structure of the Catholic Church, just an acceptance of elitism. Maybe that's why people kiss the pope's ring while he sits on an earthy throne: it makes sense them in their world view.
You wrote:
“Stating that Martin Luther was arrogant, while ignoring the fact that those at the Diet of Worms treated Martin Luther as a deviant child, ignored any attempt at reason, and gave anyone the legal right to kill Martin Luther without recourse.”
NYer is more than capable of responding to you on all of your points, but I hope you don’t mind if I make a point here. You seem to be equating Luther with the Church. Luther had NO AUTHORITY. The Church had AUTHORITY from Christ. In other words, Luther was acting like a deviant child defiantly insisting he was right and his parents were wrong. Also, the idea that only Luther was reasonable and the whole Church or even the whole Diet of Worms was unreasonable is simply ridiculous. Luther’s whole life was marked by rash decisions and actions. The Diet of Worms was anything but rash or unreasonable.
Also, I think you might be making a mistake about what “outlaw” means. The actual decree read like this:
“For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favor the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work.”
The concept of “outlaw” that you are describing is what was believed to be found in medieval English common law. I don’t believe it existed in imperial law in the Holy Roman Empire. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
Tell it to Paul.
He spells it out pretty clearly.
Pint to Post 6
You wrote:
“Tell it to Paul.”
He already knows.
“He spells it out pretty clearly.”
Yep:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28.
I agree with St. Paul.
“I agree with St. Paul.”
“Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.”
-Rom 11
Protestants didn’t “reform,” they rebelled, or revolted.
I would add that, perhaps, at best, the term “reform” can loosely apply to Luther in his earlier years. A reformer, however, would not call the Pope anti-Christ or desecrate monasteries. These were acts of someone who lost his faith and not a reformer.
What went on from then on in Protestantism had nothing to do with reform altogether.
Right. I should have read down to your post before posting mine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.