| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/18/2017 12:24:33 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish personal comments |
Posted on 03/13/2017 8:58:52 AM PDT by ebb tide
I am not author. Why don’t you ask him yourself?
I posted that article. Your attempt to divert is apparent.
Interesting how _every_time_ people point out RC error, it’s dismissed as somehow excusable, misunderstanding, not doctrinal, etc - even when it’s absolutely central to the theology. After decades of discussion, I’m largely given up on trying to have a sensible debate precisely because every allegedly rock-solid point of doctrine suddenly becomes slippery & malleable when any valid point is made against it. Small wonder Luther gave up trying to debate the issues: he went in with a sense of what constituted rational fairness, and (if anything like the experience many have) came out of the debate feeling cheated instead of enlightened.
A straight-forward question:
Were ANY of Luther’s objections against a real problem within the church, including the sale of indulgences?
To fail to recognize serious and significant divisions between the two sides is to fail to engage in actual debate.
:-)
“when any valid point is made”
I’m still waiting.
Having been asked ‘whats my point?’ by ebb tide shows me, once again, that this question was asked in between the gobbling bites of the lunch half hour sandwich work ritual, where the attention span accepts soundbytes.
My point is that in saying ‘I choose Luther’, I REFUSE anything that is connected to, concocted by, or created from, a religion that states and defends that muddy sin taints every living person, and then defends the hallucination that one of these living persons is elected and appointed as ‘infallible’, by other living persons, who also are tainted.
That is my point, ebb tide.
Enjoy the rest of your lunch.
Yes, and the abuses were addressed in the Council of Trent.
ALL of Luther’s theological points were rejected.
I had no intention of diverting the article. I simply had some questions because I see great inconsistencies in your criticism of Martin Luther for going against the Pope and the church hierarchy. You appear to believe Luther should have been blindly obedient and unquestioning of their moral authority. It seems to me that to be consistent you would have to support everything this current Pope says and does. Maybe you do. I don’t know. It just appears to me that most faithful Roman Catholics on FR are having doubts about the moral authority of the current pope and his hierarchy in Rome.
Aren't you the omniscent one. Luther thought he was too.
Please explain the difference between this and when a politician denies an opponent's allegations?
Basically, your answer amounts to the fact that the people he challenged denied that the challenges were valid. Ergo, anyone who wishes to debate the point now must accede that the challenges were invalid, because the people being challenged disagreed.
What is most amusing to me is that the question I posed elicited one form of the exact answer I expected, rather than trying to spark an actual debate.
Have a great day, FRiend.
You, yourself, referenced an article that I had posted that was critical of this papacy.
So who’s “blindly obediet”? There have been good popes (many of them saints) and there have been bad popes. This one is the worst (in my opinion), so far, but I’m not jumping off the ark. After all, it’s the only one.
There's no difference. If allegations are proved true, the politician is impeached and/or removed from office.
In Luther's case, his heresy was proved true and he was excommunicated.
ebb tide, I am glad and relieved to know that you are not blindly obedient to the current pope and his hierarchy. Thank you for posting articles that examine and question the pronouncements, actions, and dare I say, his infallibility? It still begs the question why you find that Martin Luther was wrong in not blindly following the pronouncements, actions, and infallibility of the pope of his day. You acknowledge that the Church has had good popes and bad popes. Was that pope of Martin Luther’s time a godly pope by your standards? Should Martin Luther have shut up and gone along with the program, endorsed the practices of selling indulgences for the remission of sin or to decrease time in purgatory? Did the Pope and the Church have the right from God to sell these indulgences? Who was being heretical here? Martin Luther or the Pope?
Would you elaborate?
Jesus said He was returning to a church without spot or wrinkle. I believe Him. Jesus said, His sheep know His voice. I believe Him. Jesus said, The gates of hell will not prevail against His church. I believe Him.
If your denomination or your denomination's culture is premenient in your life; if your denomination has replaced the Holy Spirit and Word of God in your life - then you are missing it and you are not seeing your brothers and sisters in Christ.
There's a line from the movie Avator where Jake says to Neytiri, "I see you", which actually meant I see your spirit, soul and body. Christians need to begin seeing one another as living stones and members of Christ's body.
The Lord's prayers says, ..."thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." When we get to heaven, there will not be separate Orthodox, Roman and Protestant camps. We will be one in Christ. We are NOW one in Christ. Let us be so.
We are supposed to be one in Christ now, but we are not now, nor do we appear to want to be all that much.
If we did, we would make the effort and cheer those who do and have, instead of separating ourselves into very distinct groups of irreconcilably opposing beliefs.
Loving our neighbors, loving our brothers and sisters, even loving our selves, let alone following His Commandments, are still too much for all but a few of us.
More and more, I realize the many ways and reasons why I must count and include my own self and soul among those who have not yet lived up to His Law nor His Love.
Even now, after all these years and more than a few tears, my competitive, critical spirit is a still just a work in progress: lots of work and little progress.
When it is the catholic who should question their own texts.
As an example....from the catholic encyclopedia online regarding the false teaching of the Immaculate Conception:
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel ( Proto-evangelium ), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman : "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" ( Genesis 3:15 ). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
Guys,
Interesting FR discussion on a fairly emotional subject. It is nice to see the courtesy extended by Freepers to fellow Freepers in this discussion. For some reason, FR went crazy with undue hostility during this last election cycle. Although it has not returned entirely to “normal,” this particular thread harkens to more congenial times.
These types of discussions brought by people of some knowledge are what makes FR the great site it is.
IMHO
Oldplayer
What of Luther’s theology would you care to defend?
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.