Posted on 10/12/2017 7:43:41 PM PDT by vladimir998
The brilliant German monk never intended to start his own Church
A few years ago, a Lutheran friend sent me a link to her favourite website: Lutheran Satire. The brainchild of a US Lutheran pastor, it focuses on Church humour from a Lutheran angle. The goal is catechesis through comedy, and no issue or religious leader is too sacred to poke. One of the site’s most popular videos is a cartoon called “The Reformation Piggybackers”. The plot is simple: Luther nails his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg church...
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
There’s also the factor of never wanting to admit the Catholic church has ever been wrong.
If it was wrong about one thing, that opens the door to the possibility of it being wrong other times, too. Then where does it stop?
Also, if your church is perfect then it puts you in the position of feeling like you can justifiably criticize others.
It’s a HUGE pride issue too.
Many Church officials did approve of it by their actions (or inaction). What vlad has been trying to say is that it was never official Catholic teaching nor practice. These were abuses. Abuses that went all the way up.
It is similar to the liturgical abuses we see in various Novus Ordo churches. Did Vatican II officially teach that these abuses were allowed? No. Even I get that. But the abuses are there nonetheless and the hierarchy does nothing to stop them. They are to blame, but the abuses were never part of official Catholic teaching.
Ping for post #182...sorry, I hit post before adding you to the ping list.
I respect someone who is willing to see the past and call it for what it is.
None of us are perfect. Mistakes have been made. We're all better off if we own up to them to avoid them in the future.
“What English Bibles did the Roman Catholic Church approve before Tyndale’s?”
Thousands of Bibles were approved by local bishops. I even came across a certificate from a local bishop approving a translation of the bible that was possessed by a lay person.
“Tyndale was martyred for his faith in 1536.”
Actually he was executed for his heresy but if you want to call that his faith, fine.
“The ones who condemned him to be burned at the stake were the heretics.”
No, it is clear Tyndale held beliefs no one before his generation ever held so only he could be the heretic. Remember, those who supported Tyndale were executing Catholics only a few years later so your words about “they did what heretics will sometimes do: murder and torture God’s elect” can easily be applied to Protestants.
you said to piusv: I respect someone who is willing to see the past and call it for what it is.
I did exactly that:
“I’d have some respect for the Protestant who would admit the truth: No pope, no council, ever in the history of the Church advocated or authorized the sale of indulgences. It was a clear violation of canon law. I would have more respect for the popes and councils of that time if they did a better job of disciplining those unscrupulous men who sold indulgences. But as it is, it looks like some Protestants on FR will insist that popes and councils did what no one has any record of them doing. As it is, there’s no way to go back in time and get popes and councils to better discipline unscrupulous men who sold indulgences. That situation wouldn’t get better until the Council of Trent.” http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3594481/posts?page=169#169
You still don’t see the difference between your reply and piusv’s.
“can easily be applied to Protestants”
All Protestants? Not all Protestants murdered and tortured people. Some of them fled here which led to the enshrinement of religious liberty and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment into our Constitution.
Thank God for those Protestants. And if it weren’t for them, those same murdering religious groups would still be doing so today. The Protestants who fled here had to flee both the Catholic Church and the Church of England.
Thank God that at least one great nation was not dominated by the religious institution based in Rome. Because the nations in South and Central America did not have the Protestant beliefs that prevented Socialism from being embraced here (so far). When this nation was formed, there were less than 2% Roman Catholics here.
“Thousands of Bibles were approved by local bishops. I even came across a certificate from a local bishop approving a translation of the bible that was possessed by a lay person.”
Yeah. Those were the early reformers. Men like John Wycliffe. Like I said, if it weren’t for the Reformation, the common people would have never received the word of God in their native tongue.
You want to claim credit to yourself and your religious institution for the contributions of the apostles, the early church fathers, and reformers who were calling the church to repentance. Yet you identify yourself, not with reformers like Tyndale, but with the murderous clergy.
You are just exactly like the religious leaders of Jesus’s days on earth. They claimed a special authority and place in God’s kingdom. But they despised the message of repentance from John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles. And they wanted to kill them all. The religious leaders considered these servants of God to be heretics, just like you and the wicked men you justify did. Just read their haughty words.
Luke 13:14
But the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath; and he said to the crowd, “There are six days on which men ought to work; therefore come and be healed on them, and not on the Sabbath day.”
This wicked clergyman tried to dictate to God and the Son of God when they could work. The religious leaders were filled with fury because Jesus did not follow their traditions. They attacked the ones Jesus healed and excommunicated them. They attacked Jesus, calling Him insane and demonic. They plotted to kill Him and Lazarus because He raised Lazarus from the dead, causing many to believe on Him. The biggest clergyman of them all, the pope of Jewry, said, “One man should die for the people that the whole nation perish not.” And they followed his counsel, sending Jesus to the Roman authorities to be crucified.
Matthew 15:6b-9
You have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.
Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
“These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
They elevated their tradition to have authority equal to scripture, but they hated the Word of God because it contradicted and disproved the lawfulness of their traditions. And it is the same with you and your religious institution.
John 9:24, 28, 29, 34
So they again called the man who was blind, and said to him, “Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner.”
Then they reviled him and said, “You are His disciple, but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spoke to Moses; as for this fellow, we do not know where He is from.”
They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” And they cast him out.
“Actually [Tyndale] was executed for his heresy.”
That’s a disgusting claim. I’ve seen the videos of the woman who nonchalantly discusses dismembering the babies she kills so she can get herself an expensive sports car. She speaks in detached, clinical terms, just like you. You actually justify burning a man alive because he disagrees with your man-made traditions. His beliefs and deeds were based on the word of God and in support and defense of the word of God. These wicked “Catholics” who are now in the fiery torment of Hell, had him burned alive in their vicious, demonic efforts to stop people from hearing the word of God in their own language.
But you treat this torture and murder as acceptable and normal. When did Jesus torture and murder anyone? When did the apostles? When did the early church fathers? No, you got that tradition from the real lineage of your heretical religious institution: from the Pharisees who murdered Jesus. And they got it from the apostate Jews who murdered God’s prophets (who were faithful Jews), just as Jesus told them. And they all got it from their father the Devil. They followed their father and their traditions, just as you do.
Matthew 23:29-35
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, “If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
“It is clear Tyndale held beliefs no one before his generation ever held so only he could be the heretic.”
His tradition was to give people the word of God, not hide and obscure it and try to be gatekeepers of it. It was the same among the religious leaders of Jesus’s earthly ministry. He did the same deeds as righteous men did throughout history. His murderers did the deeds that the phony religious leaders and false prophets did throughout history. They followed the murderous way of Cain who killed his brother Able because Able’s service to God was good, but Cain’s was rejected by God. These are the ones Christ and the apostles warned the real Church to beware of: ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing, deceivers coming in Christ’s name, murderers who follow the way of Cain.
Yes, Tyndale deviated from your murderous traditions which you and your religious institution got from the Christ-murdering religious leaders, the false prophets, and their father, the Devil.
Luke 11:52
Woe to you lawyers [experts in the Law of Moses]! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.
Acts 7:52
Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers.
John 8:33a, 37
They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants...” [Jesus replied], “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.”
John 8:39, 44a
They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham... You are of your father the devil.”
Matthew 3:7-9
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.”
Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
Jude 11a
Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain.
1 John 3:10-12
In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.
“All Protestants? Not all Protestants murdered and tortured people.”
Not all Catholics did either. And?
“Some of them fled here...”
Yes, and those were PROTESTANTS fleeing PROTESTANTS.
“You still don’t see the difference between your reply and piusv’s.”
There was no effective difference between the two.
There was...you can’t/won’t see it. This is why people don’t like to debate with you.
Oh, now. Not all of them. We've had this discussion before.
“There was...you can’t/won’t see it.”
And yet you can’t see it when you’re objectively wrong and saying one phrase is another. You can’t. . . or you choose not to.
“This is why people don’t like to debate with you.”
And your refusal to admit that “Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church” written in Latin in the 13th century by a pope is not the same phrase as “Roman Catholics” invented by English Protestants in the 16th/17th century and often used as a pejorative in those centuries and even afterward is why people think some Protestants here are probably intellectually dishonest.
“Oh, now. Not all of them. We’ve had this discussion before.”
If they were English Protestants, they were not fleeing across the Atlantic to get away from Catholics - especially since there were Catholics already in North and South America and the Caribbean.
I also dislike the merry-go-round that so often happens on such threads as these. I DON'T play that game because I know people's very souls and spirituality are involved. But let me say this one more time about the "abuses" of indulgences that spurred Martin Luther's 95 Theses...the abuse really wasn't that people could purchase a "get-out-of-purgatory" letter from Indulgence peddlers who had the tacit approval of the hierarchy. Since, even today, indulgences can STILL be "dispensed" for a donation, the abuse Luther railed against was that, for the prior three hundred years, indulgences were taught as a means to the remission of sins and people missed out on the purpose for confession, contrition and penance and were taught to fear the punishment for their sin more than the sin itself. The indulgence robbed the Sacrament of Penance of its ethical content. The preaching of indulgences concealed the true nature of repentance. Because of this, he felt, people became fearless and careless. Ironically, that same accusation is thrown at those of us who believe in salvation through faith alone and eternal security today.
The discussions we engage in with these threads helps us learn about such things and I see great value in them. Though they should not devolve into insult fests or occasion for one-upmanship - and we ought to guard against that:
I appreciate your input here.
“those were PROTESTANTS fleeing PROTESTANTS”
The difference is that I know of no Protestants anywhere advocating and justifying such crimes done in the name of Christ, whether by Protestants or Catholics. No one here is justifying torturing people for disagreeing with their theology, except you. To justify your theology, which begins with the a priori premise that the Catholic Church can do no wrong, you must therefore either deny that official representatives of the Church ever did such deeds. Or you must justify that such deeds are lawful and approved by God. And you have chosen the latter.
Jesus prophesied about people like those Catholics who murdered Tyndale:
John 16:2
They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.
I missed where Jesus or the apostles prophesied of the day when His disciples would one day rise up have have heretics (or so you say) burned at the stake. Would you kindly point me to that passage of scripture?
“Not all Catholics did either. And?”
Not all Catholics have a religious view that allows them to nonchalantly discuss burning men alive for disagreeing with their theology. And not all go posting on public forums that there is nothing wrong with this.
But you do.
Like the religious leaders who killed the prophets, the followers of Christ, and Christ Himself.
You’re position is on par with a KKK member telling black people that their ancestors getting lynched and their women being raped was fine because they had it coming. The only difference is that you advocate such a position in the name of Jesus.
The beliefs you advocate do not belong on a conservative forum. This forum is for people who believe in freedom of religion, not coercing people with the threat of torture.
You actually justified burning people alive for disagreeing with your theology. Correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t want to accept that anyone on this forum could hold such a belief.
You seem to be saying the men who did this did nothing wrong.
I find it hard to believe my own eyes. I must go back and check if that really did happen, here on a conservative, pro-Christian forum. Yes, indeed it did:
“Actually he was executed for his heresy...” in #185.
Wait. No. There are actually two of you advocating this:
“Tyndale...was condemned because his translation was heretical...” in #48.
Did the founders of this country get the first amendment wrong? Do we need to get enough Catholics in office to amend and correct it to reflect that the Roman Catholic Church is the only state-sanctioned religion? Do we need to also make an exception for the “cruel and unusual punishment” in cases of “heresy” against the Holy Roman Empire?
Is this part of the Catholic “tradition” you’ve been boldly proclaiming, that goes all the way back to Christ and the apostles?
It’s strange, I never read of Christ or the apostles doing such things. Reminds me more of modern-day Islamic terrorism.
I understand your wish to not pursue this discussion so don't feel obligated to respond to this and no offense taken if you don't.
Just for the record, we have heard that lousy excuse so many times already that it's beyond meaningless.
It doesn't matter if it were not *official* church doctrine. That's been a weasel out for Catholics for years to try to exonerate their church from complicity in something that is wrong or outright sin.
It doesn't work and is not fooling anyone.
It doesn't matter if it were never *official* cause in practice what does matter is what happened and that by allowing it, it was condoned by the church hierarchy.
Actions speak louder than words and by it not being church doctrine does not allow the church to disassociate itself from the actions, disown them, or not be responsible for them. It does not allow the church to be guiltless in its relationship to the events.
It does nothing but make the Catholics who spew that line look like fools.
Catholics would be better off to just stop using that excuse in an effort to distance themselves and the church from the problem and just flat out admit that the church was wrong it what it did. Cause everyone knows it anyways. And Catholics who use that look like nothing more than a bunch of brainwashed drones who can do nothing but parrot the party line at all costs.
It's called plausible deniability. If I don't know it's happening, it's not happening. The RCC seems to have been operating that way.
But it's happening.
As I said before...it's not so much the crime that gets people upset...it's the cover-up.
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.