Posted on 11/01/2017 5:41:00 AM PDT by SJackson
If you'd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
The Reformation was a return to Biblical truth, and exposed massive corruption in the Catholic Church. It is not to blame for the evils of Islam. Islam is to blame for the evils of Islam.
Constantinople fell in 1453. The East was lost to Christianity at that point and the Ottoman Turks were a unified and dominant force. Crusading was no longer an option. The rift between Catholics and Protestants was not really a significant factor, I think. It was simple reality.
I think it is a reach to imply that the West became “pro-Islam” because of Luther.
>>That the Protestant Reformation unwittingly benefited Islam should not be interpreted as an attack on the Reformation or a defense of Catholicism. Nor does it say anything about the theological merits, or truths, of either.
But the Reformation is ONLY about the theological truths. Luther wanted to have a conversation with the Roman Church about them. They chose to split by excommunication, persecution, execution.
I disagree. The Pope has the sole source of Christian writing means of production was very much in line with islam.
It is because the church obsessed on Protestants and found more kinship in kalifatic theocratic politics that islam came back in resurgence.
In any case, we see today Pope Francis veiled attack on US protestant representative government in the manner of his entitled demands for 80 million a year worth of subsidies to house illegals and islamic terrorists who have no intention on honoring representation but screwing us. And these subsidies making America a Catholic theocracy must be paid by dhimmited protestants.
Luther did not criticize the opposition to islam and freeing the Middle East from heathens, but the globalist entitled Catholic-militaro industrial complex of the days which aimed to tax people to impose the church’s opinion making in militarized schools. The French revolution promise of funding and caring for the Church was also welcomed by many catholics.
The Catholic church found itself thus negociating with muslims in the mid-East instead of welcoming a Protestant confederation the way the Swiss did it. The Swiss Neutrality and Calvin never invited islam, quite the opposite, They went up mountains as a defensive measure and to prevent European entanglements in globalist entitled dramas.
True, one could say the schism between the Catholic and the Orthodox were what created a vacuum for islam to thrive. Orthodoxy was the original church, after all, only preceded by the copts who to this day are still defending from islam without the Catholic Pope lifting a finger.
* the Pope as the sole source of Christian writing means of production are in line with Kalifatic islam.
That’s the birth of relativism religious and intellectual or philosophical .
St Peter the venerable Abbey of CLUNY in the 11th century accuratly stated that islam was a kind of arianism .....and a pretext for violence and aggressive expansion and robberies
Allah is not the God of Abraham.
Why did Constantinople get the works?
Historically it was ostensibly Catholic France that shortly after the fall of Constantinople embraced the Ottoman empire. It even allowed the Turkish fleet to winter in French ports. France shamelessly pursued mercantile and strategic advantages from the Ottomans fully aware what the Ottomans were doing to Christians in Turkey,the Balkans and Greece. The culmination of that embrace was when France stood idle when the Turks were at the gates of Vienna.
Author contends X promotes Y, because X was adamantly against Y _and_ was motivated to oppose Z who also was adamantly against Y? Huh?
This is a veiled & imputed instance of the misguided aphorism “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” - in this case, “the enemy (Islam) of my enemy (Catholicism) is my (Protestantism) friend” - no, they all hate each other.
That’s nobody’s business but the Turks.
I love FR!
Very true. Additionally, the author doesn't even articulate Luther's real view. The problem isn't fighting Islam, the problem is the church running a military campaign. The state bears the sword, not the church.
Yes, as I suspected.
It is the Catholic centralist rebellion against the original church which created a schism and a power vacuum.
http://islamdom.blogspot.com/2007/07/1054-east-west-schism.html
...........
On arriving in the imperial city in April 1054, Humbert launched into a vicious criticism of Cerularius and his supporters. But the patriarch ignored the papal legate, and an angry Humbert stalked into Hagia Sophia and placed on the altar the bull of excommunication. He returned to Rome convinced he had gained a victory for the Holy See.
Dramatic though they were, the events of 1054 were not recorded by the chroniclers of the time and were quickly forgotten. Negotiations between the pope and the Byzantine emperor continued, especially in the last two decades of the century, as the Byzantines sought aid against the invading Turks. In 1095, to provide such help, Pope Urban II proclaimed the Crusades; certainly there was no schism between the churches at that time. Despite episodes of tension and conflict, Eastern and Western Christians lived and worshiped together.
In the latter half of the twelfth century, however, friction between the groups increased, caused not so much by religious differences as by political and cultural ones. Violent anti-Latin riots erupted in Constantinople in 1182, and in 1204 Western knights brutally ravaged Constantinople itself. The tension accelerated, and by 1234, when Greek and Latin churchmen met to discuss their differences, it was obvious they represented different churches.
Underlying Causes of the Break
What caused the schism? It was not the excommunications of 1054; not differences in theology, discipline, or liturgy; not political or military conflicts. These may have disposed the churches to draw apart, as did prejudice, misunderstanding, arrogance, and plain stupidity. More fundamental, perhaps, was the way each church came to perceive itself.
The eleventh-century reform in the Western Church called for the strengthening of papal authority, which caused the church to become more autocratic and centralized. Basing his claims on his succession from St. Peter, the pope asserted his direct jurisdiction over the entire church, East as well as West.
The Byzantines, on the other hand, viewed their church in the context of the imperial system; their sources of law and unity were the ecumenical councils and the emperor, whom God had placed over all things, spiritual and temporal. They believed that the Eastern churches had always enjoyed autonomy of governance, and they rejected papal claims to absolute rule. But neither side was really listening to the other. [...]
Interesting article by Raymond Ibrahim. Thanks for posting.
Protestantism was Datand guft to Hod división heresy murder death despair the decline of Western Civilization we presently see, the destruction of Solidarity. Yeah Biblical Truth my ass.
What you said.
No, really, what did you say?
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.