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 ...
Well, I see you've tried to imitate my Rules of Vlad with your "programming" posts. LOL. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. LOL! I love winning.
Nope. You’re wrong again. The earliest believers were called Christians....not Roman Catholics. That came later. LOL. Winning again.
“Nope. You’re wrong again.”
No, I’m not.
“The earliest believers were called Christians....not Roman Catholics.”
I said nothing about names. The earliest name for Christianity was The Way (Acts 9:2, 19:9, 19:23, 22:4, 24:14, 24:22). Perhaps you didn’t know that. That would not surprise me. There’s so much about the history of Christianity that you apparently don’t know after all. Later, the followers of The Way became known as Christians (Acts 11:26). Later, the Church became known as the Catholic Church. Ignatius of Antioch makes that clear in around A.D. 110. No one referred to “Roman Catholics” until the 16th or 17th century when Protestants coined the term and used it as a pejorative and it became enshrined in the laws of some Protestant countries. That was part of an attempt by Protestant sects to seize control of the language and the term “Catholic Church”. Hence, if you go to Japan, the “Holy Catholic Church” is actually the Anglican Church founded there in the 19th century. They did that very deliberately. Protestants have to resort to their programming after all.
“That came later. LOL. Winning again.”
You’re floundering like Hillary stumbling to her van.
“You’re arguing semantics like the clintons to avoid the issue.”
No, I’m just stating facts and you can’t combat them. DONATION means no SALE.
“Well, I see you’ve tried to imitate my Rules of Vlad with your “programming” posts. LOL. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. LOL! I love winning.”
Except you’re only losing. This is how it always goes. Obey your programming, drone. Say you’re winning something even though you have been shown to be wrong in post after post. Claim different words mean the same thing. Present no actual evidence. Get basic facts wrong about history or the Bible. It doesn’t matter to the drone.
Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 – 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
http://catholicism.org/eens-popes.html
"The holy Roman Church firmly believes and confesses that on the Day of Judgment all men will appear in their own bodies before Christ's tribunal to render an account of their own deeds" (Council of Lyons II [1274]:DS 859; cf. DS 1549).http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm
"It (The Roman Church) teaches...that the souls... of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places." (Pope John XXII, 1321 A.D.)http://www.mycatholicsource.com/mcs/pc/catholic_basics/catholic_basics_sin_and_vice.htm
It is the business of the pope to look after the interests of the Roman empire, since the empire derives its origin and its final authority from the papacy; its origin, because it was originally transferred from Greece by and for the sake of the papacy...its final authority, because the emperor is raised to his position by the pope who blesses him, crowns him and invests him with the empire....Therefore, since three persons have lately been elected king by different parties, namely the youth [Frederick, son of Henry VI], Philip [of Hohenstaufen, brother of Henry VI], and Otto [of Brunswick, of the Welf family], so also three things must be taken into account in regard to each one, namely: the legality, the suitability and the expediency of his election......Far be it from us that we should defer to man rather than to God, or that we should fear the countenance of the powerful....On the foregoing grounds, then, we decide that the youth should not at present be given the empire; we utterly reject Philip for his manifest unfitness and we order his usurpation to be resisted by all....since Otto is not only himself devoted to the church, but comes from devout ancestors on both sides.....therefore we decree that he ought to be accepted and supported as king, and ought to be given the crown of empire, after the rights of the Roman church have been secured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_III
You might want to see if you can get your money back on those history classes you claim to have taken....or better...stay away from Tim Staples' "apologetics.
WINNING. AGAIN
I said: No one referred to “Roman Catholics” until the 16th or 17th century when Protestants coined the term and used it as a pejorative and it became enshrined in the laws of some Protestant countries.
And then you proved me right:
“but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church”
NOT “Roman Catholics”.
“[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church”
NOT “Roman Catholics”.
“the Roman Pontiff.”
NOT “Roman Catholics”.
“The holy Roman Church”
NOT “Roman Catholics”.
“It (The Roman Church)”
NOT “Roman Catholics”.
“Roman church”
NOT “Roman Catholics”.
NOT EVEN ONE OF YOUR EXAMPLES ACTUALLY SAID “Roman Catholics”. NOT ONE. Just as you said DONATE and SALE are the same thing when they are not, you are now saying “Roman Church” is the Same thing as “Roman Catholic Church” is the same thing as “Roman pontiff” is the same thing as “Roman Catholics” when they are not the same.
But keep obeying your programming. You have to claim they are all the same and all mean the same thing to avoid the obvious truth that you were wrong.
Also, not that facts will matter to you, but “Roman Catholic” is an English expression and not a Latin one. And we know where the English one came from and why. The OED is a good, but incomplete, start:
The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)
This has been explained to other Protestants here before: https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2459653/posts?page=26#26
From the old Catholic Encyclopedia has a much more detailed and fuller explanation of where the Protestant expression “Roman Catholic” came from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm
Here’s something that instantly shows how the Church calls itself Catholic and always had but how Catholics in the English speaking world commonly used “Roman Catholic” (because of customary usage). This is from the Literary Digest, vol. 19 (1899) page 746:
“Roman Catholic” or “Catholic”?-The question as to what is the proper designation of the great body of Christians who are in communion with the Roman See is one that it is difficult to answer in a way satisfactory both to those who recog nize and those who do not recognize the spiritual authority of the Roman pontiff. Several hundreds of millions of Christians who are members of the Russian, Greek, Armenian, and other Oriental churches, most Anglicans and not a few Protestants claim a right to the title Catholic; and the churches of the Orient, at least, have borne it ever since history has kept any record. Since they object to the exclusive use of the word by a single religious body, it is hardly practicable even for impartial onlookers to avoid the use of the term “ Roman Catholic “ to designate the Latin church. It appears, however, according to The Casket (Rom. Catb.) that “the proper name and title is ‘the Catholic Church.’” It says: “The church herself officially recognizes no other title. In the congress of the powers of Europe at Vienna, 1815, Cardinal Gonsalvi objected to the joint use of the terms Roman Catholic, ‘but was willing that they should be separately applied to the church, which is Roman by reason of its necessary dependence on the See of Rome and Catholic on account of its univeral diffusion.’ Of the many qualifying words which denote essential properties of the church, one had to be chosen to serve as her proper name. The one so chosen is the word Catholic, and when we speak of Catholics, or Protestants, there can be no misunderstanding as to who are indicated. The words Roman and Catholic therefore agree in this, that they both express essential qualities of the church ; and they differ in this, that Catholic has been officially adopted by the church to be her proper name or title, while Roman has never been so adopted.” Rather curiously, in the paper (Rom. Catb.) which reprints this article with apparent approval, we find the term “Roman Catholic” used over twenty times as a designation of the church to which it gives allegiance.
Because “Roman Catholic” became so commonly attached to the Catholic Church in the English mind you even find Catholic leaders (a century ago) defending the use of “Roman Catholic” as an actual proof thereof (although with an insistant point to be made):
CATHOLIC OR ROMAN CATHOLIC Objections To The Term “roman Catholic —Cardinal Vaughn Declares It Is Correct And Absolutely Exclusive According to a Catholic correspondent of the London Spectator, “Catholics object to being called ‘Roman Catholics,’ firstly, because that name was invented and first used in opprobrium; secondly, because it connotes, what is untrue; and thirdly, because it is an infringement of their own peculiar trademark. The first is a notorious historical fact. The second arises from the use of ‘Roman’ as distinctive, instead of as additive. The church is both ‘Catholic’ and ‘Roman,’ the former in extension, the latter in concentration. But it is not ‘Roman Catholic,’ as implying the existence of more than one Catholic church,—an absurdity. As to the amusing claim of the Anglican to share churchdom with us and the Greeks, one need hardly say that a threefold partnership can hardly exist when two out of the three repudiate it. The third is simply a breach of good manners. It is not felony, no doubt, nor even misdemeanor, to take another man’s name or title and! use it as one’s own. The state does not punish such pilfering, though society usually does. The claim urged by ‘An Irish Bishop’ in the Spectator is ludicrously irrelevant. The question is not one of theology, out of common courtesy. We claim the name ‘Catholic’ because we have a prescriptive right to it by the exclusive use of nineteen centuries. During that time many have aspired to it, none have actually acquired it.” The editor of the Spectator says in reply: “Our correspondent’s letter is not merely rude and illogical,, but it is not even consistent with the view of his own church as expounded by its chiefs. Cardinal Vaughan, at a meeting of the Catholic Truth society, said: “I would now say to you all, use the term ‘Roman Catholic.’ Claim it, defend it, be proud of it—but in the true and Catholic sense. It is logically correct and absolutely exclusive.” A member of the Church of England explains inthe Spectator why his communion claims the term “Catholic”: “The word ‘Catholic’ embraces all that is essentially good and true either in religion or in morals. To limit ‘grace’ which ‘came by Christ’ to the external church is surely to be guilty of the rankest heresy, and some may be known here as heretics who are truly entitled to rank in the real Catholic church above some of its most orthodox professing members. We members of the Anglican communion are Catholics because we believe in the universal church, which, as our holy communion office says, is ‘the blessed company of alt . faithful people.” Public opinion, Volume 33 (1902) page 119.
The following belongs to the previous citation:
That glorious name Catholic has ever been her property. Her children throughout the whole world are known as Catholics. No addition is necessary, and all men know it. When an addition is made, it is made not as a qualification, but either as expressing a particular point of view of a particular individual with a particular ax to grind, or in deference to that particular point of view of the particular individual with the particular ax to grind: a mere act of toleration, a mere modus vivendi, a mere makeshift to avoid discussion here and now undesirable. And all men know it. I must confess that I have never been able to be frightfully distressed at the term Roman Catholic. It can be used in a right sense, as pointing to that definite centre of that universal Unity which is the reason for the name Catholic. It adds nothing necessary for the precise definition of the Church. And no one save those with a particular ax to grind, ever affects to hesitate as to which Church is indicated by the name Catholic. That name is ours by right commonly acknowledged from the beginning. And in so far as the term Roman is used in the wrong sense with which we are all acquainted, we can afford to smile at it. It really scarcely deserves notice: it will fall by its own weight: it will die of its own suggested falsity. Other heretics have done this sort of thing before, as Augustine told Julian.11 It is not wonderful that heretics should try to give a new name to the Catholics whom they have left. The Arians tried to call us Homousians or Athanasians; the Pelagians tried to call us Traducians; the Donatists tried to call us Macarians; the Manichaeans tried to call us Pharisees. It does not matter. The point is that only those with a particular ax to grind will try to give us a particular name to modify Catholic pure and simple. As Augustine said of the epithet Traducian, and as De Maistre said of the epithet Papist, it is merely foolish and impolite: “Une pure insulte, et une insulte de mauvais ton, qui chez les Protestants meme, ne sort plus d’une bouche distinguee.” So will it be with this spurious and artificial sense attached to this use of the word Roman. The whole thing is an illustration, conversely, of the force of Chrysostom’s argument from names. It is the new thing that demands a new name; and the name, in this instance, remains.
And in 1922, the Catholic World, Volume 115 we find this:
That glorious name Catholic has ever been her property. Her children throughout the whole world are known as Catholics. No addition is necessary, and all men know it. When an addition is made, it is made not as a qualification, but either as expressing a particular point of view of a particular individual with a particular ax to grind, or in deference to that particular point of view of the particular individual with the particular ax to grind: a mere act of toleration, a mere modus vivendi, a mere makeshift to avoid discussion here and now undesirable. And all men know it. I must confess that I have never been able to be frightfully distressed at the term Roman Catholic. It can be used in a right sense, as pointing to that definite centre of that universal Unity which is the reason for the name Catholic. It adds nothing necessary for the precise definition of the Church. And no one save those with a particular ax to grind, ever affects to hesitate as to which Church is indicated by the name Catholic. That name is ours by right commonly acknowledged from the beginning. And in so far as the term Roman is used in the wrong sense with which we are all acquainted, we can afford to smile at it. It really scarcely deserves notice: it will fall by its own weight: it will die of its own suggested falsity. Other heretics have done this sort of thing before, as Augustine told Julian.11 It is not wonderful that heretics should try to give a new name to the Catholics whom they have left. The Arians tried to call us Homousians or Athanasians; the Pelagians tried to call us Traducians; the Donatists tried to call us Macarians; the Manichaeans tried to call us Pharisees. It does not matter. The point is that only those with a particular ax to grind will try to give us a particular name to modify Catholic pure and simple. As Augustine said of the epithet Traducian, and as De Maistre said of the epithet Papist, it is merely foolish and impolite: “Une pure insulte, et une insulte de mauvais ton, qui chez les Protestants meme, ne sort plus d’une bouche distinguee.” So will it be with this spurious and artificial sense attached to this use of the word Roman. The whole thing is an illustration, conversely, of the force of Chrysostom’s argument from names. It is the new thing that demands a new name; and the name, in this instance, remains.
Go on now and obey your programming. Claim different words are the same thing and mean the same thing. You’ve already done it on multiple occasions anyway. Why stop now? The facts just don’t seem to matter to you.
I knew you couldn't admit to being wrong.
You emulate the Clintons to a tee.
It's why I came up with the Rules for debating Vlad....which now you've tried to co-opt a version of with your "programming" posts.
You can't even come up with original material!
LOL!
Winning again.
As always, Vlad...it's been interesting.
It would be like a person is convicted by a judge and sentenced to the death penalty and the executioner carried it out. The judge says, “I didn’t kill anyone.” That’s how our FRoman friends defend their church from accusations they killed “heretics”. Yeah, it doesn’t convince me either.
"No"...the knee-jerk response of those who prove consistently unable to see history for what it is when their "church" is criticized. It's all just a misunderstanding of Luther's, right? If even your own previous Pope (Benedict) admitted the deplorable condition of the clergy and the "Catholic" church of the Middle Ages and its NEED for reform, then why can't modern day RCs do it?
You know, it really is amazing how Martin Luther is the favorite whipping boy after all these years - especially when he is trotted out so frequently in support of Catholic dogma on these threads. "Luther Derangement Syndrome" - indeed! Make up your minds!
Here's a history lesson - Luther was NOT the "father of Protestantism" - that's just a derogatory label polemist Catholics like to use to label him when they aren't trotting him out to support their dogmas. There were MANY "reformers" before AND after him that sought to right the ship of what claimed Universal Christian Church authority in those times. It was FAR more widespread than some seem comfortable with. It was a necessary and NEEDED action in a time when those who wore the mantle of "Apostleship" proved repeatedly they had NO concept of what the term even meant past the ability to demand obedience. Were the Popes and bishops of those days held to the standards the REAL Apostles established for clergy (much less members), they would have been banished to outer darkness for their duplicity and sins. Seriously...can this even be debated?
There was no "new" religion of the Reformation - as you ought to honestly acknowledge - but a battle to return to the genuine faith once delivered to the saints. A faith that did NOT include paying alms to forgive sins or free loved ones from a fictitious Purgatory. A faith that was based on the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world and which HIS righteousness was imputed to those who by faith received Him as Redeemer. The just shall live by faith...it's NEVER changed.
Thank you for posting.
Leni/MinuteGal (Missouri Synod Lutheran)
Well, that looks like some major league blame shifting going on there.
All in a vain bid to protect the image of the RCC.
It’s too late.
Everyone knows better.
Excellent as usual.
Buying and selling by any other name is still buying and selling.
It’s just a game of semantics to call it a *donation* for which you got an indulgence for free.
Just like televangelists who offer to send you one of their CD’s or books for *free* when you make a *donation* of $25.
A scam by any other name is still a scam, which is what indulgences were cause nobody can buy salvation or forgiveness with money.
Blaming Luther for the Protestant Reformation and the world today is the same as blaming Columbus for the mess America is in today.
Luther was ONE man in the whole movement and it was going to happen anyways, whether he stood up to the Catholic church monopoly and corruption or not.
“Well, I’m out as I can see where this thread is heading.”
You were out from the beginning. After all how else can you explain your complete failure to provide any evidence for any of your claims? Even what you posted as evidence turned out to not say anything like what you claimed it would.
Complete failure. Perhaps there’s a fault in your programming?
“Buying and selling by any other name is still buying and selling.”
DONATION and receiving even WITHOUT DONATION are still DONATION and receiving WITHOUT DONATION. Thus, there were never any sales of indulgences authorized by the Church.
And you will never post evidence to the contrary. . . because no one has ever found evidence to the contrary.
Stay with your delusions and the Rules.
“Blaming Luther for the Protestant Reformation and the world today is the same as blaming Columbus for the mess America is in today.”
No, it is not.
“Luther was ONE man in the whole movement and it was going to happen anyways, whether he stood up to the Catholic church monopoly and corruption or not.”
There is no logical reason to believe a Protestant Revolution was “going to happen anyways” without presupposing the first Protestant - and that was Luther. Luther came up with sola scriptura. Luther came up with sola fide. Luther created the basis for a Lutheran sect.
All Columbus did was sail West and accidentally discover land that had always been there. He died 14 years later. He was almost forgotten about in English speaking America until Washington Irving’s biography of him in the middle of the nineteenth century. That never happened with Luther.
Do you know what three men have the greatest number of biographies written about them in all of history? Jesus Christ, Adolf Hitler, and Martin Luther.
When Luther wrote something it got published soon. That can’t be said for Columbus: https://www.amazon.com/Libro-profecías-Christopher-Columbus-Quincentenary/dp/0813010543
Columbus never made it to Asia. Protestantism did.
Luther is more responsible for the the world today than Columbus. It’s undeniable.
“Stay with your delusions and the Rules.”
Stick with your programming and keep claiming “Roman pontiff” is the same word as “Roman Catholics”, drone. If you want to write about delusions, just write about your own posts.
Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 – 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)
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.