Posted on 08/07/2012 2:39:20 PM PDT by NYer
Ping!
If he was much of a “saint”, he would aided Luther in exposing the hypocrisy and errors not oppose him.
So did Luther.
Cajetan was a reformer. He just wasn’t a heretic or schismatic. Luther was.
You wrote:
“So did Luther.”
Not really. If he had sought that to any great extent you would think he would have stuck with it for a while. Ultimately Luther was interested in pushing his own agenda - which he confused with God’s.
Yea, really.
He was only a heretic to the papacy. He was faithful to Christ.
Thus begins the propaganda, and ends all mention of Luther. Nothing about anyone "opposing Luther"....
Related threads:
Know your popes: Historian Thomas W. Worcester traces dramatic changes in the papacy over 500 years
Follies of Roman Catholicism: How the Catholic Church failed to save itself from the Reformation
The Popes Of Rome
How the Renaissance Papacy contributed to the Reformation
God doesn’t create junk: Identifying a God worth serving
Top Ten Moments of the Reformation
The man who dared to laugh at the Pope ["Out of the Storm: The Life and Legacy of Martin Luther"]
THE CADAVER SYNOD: STRANGEST TRIAL IN HISTORY
(Why do I ask? Let's just say that I'm just asking.)
Thanks in advance.
Luther didn’t leave the Church prior to being excommunicated. I think that’s ‘sticking with it’ quite long enough. There’s no evidence that had any intention of splitting the church.
Seems to me there is a sordid historical period sometime back then when the Roman "Church" seemed hell bent on torturing those who didn't see eye to eye.....
Mind you not picking a fight here but just curious how this Saint responded to his contemporaries and their view of those heretics?
You wrote:
“He was only a heretic to the papacy.”
No, he was a heretic to all orthodox Christians.
“He was faithful to Christ.”
Only the Christ of his own making.
The article fails to mention that Luther first tried to reform from within as well. Leaving is all that’s left to do.
You wrote:
“Please explain how Luther was a heretic and schismatic.”
1) He personally embraced heretical doctrines and schism.
2) He fostered belief and acceptance in heretical doctrines and schism.
“Also please define the term “schismatic” while you’re at it.”
No. Look it up. If you are a product of government schools and do not know basic vocabulary, then you are not ready for this conversation in any case.
“(Why do I ask? Let’s just say that I’m just asking.)”
I don’t care why you ask. Your motive and your question do not matter to me.
“Thanks in advance.”
Your thanks is not necessary.
You wrote:
“Luther didn’t leave the Church prior to being excommunicated.”
Actually Luther had left orthodox practice and belief years before 1517.
“I think that’s ‘sticking with it’ quite long enough.”
Nope.
“There’s no evidence that had any intention of splitting the church.”
Except that he did it. He certainly did not try to avoid it now did he?
That is called repetition rather than an answer.
Sorry, but Luther went outside the church to try to reform it.
It is hard to take this rant seriously, when he misidentifies the person who opposed Luther, Thomas Cajetan, with St. Cajetan, who founded the Theatines. Of course, the author does not seem to understand history or theology.
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.