Skip to comments.Pope: Lutherís intention was to renew the Church, not divide her
Posted on 01/19/2017 5:23:10 PM PST by piusv
(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis on Thursday said that the intention of Martin Luther five hundred years ago was to renew the Church, not divide her. Speaking to members of an Ecumenical Delegation from Finland who are in the Vatican to take part in the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, the Pope recalled his visit to Sweden last October and said that the gathering there gave us the courage and strength, in our Lord Jesus Christ, to look ahead to the ecumenical journey that we are called to walk together. The Pope ended his speech with off-the-cuff remarks thanking the bishop leading the delegation for having brought his grandchildren to the audience and pointing out that "we need the simplicity of children: they will show us the path that leads to Jesus Christ." The annual Week of Prayer for Christian Unity takes place from 18 to 25 January focussing on a theme selected on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation: Reconciliation The Love of Christ Compels Us. The celebration concludes with Vespers, presided over by Pope Francis, in the Basilica of St Paul Outside the Walls on January 25th. Please find below the full text of Pope Francis address to the members of the Ecumenical Delegation from Finland:
(Excerpt) Read more at en.radiovaticana.va ...
....and where are The Four?
In a strange way, he has a point.
It was corruption in the Catholic church Luther was noticing.
yes but hes attempting to link what hes doing now’to that, and that is wrong.
You should use the real headline so people searching can find it. It prevents duplicate postings.
He threw out a huge part of the OT that had been recognized as inspired Scripture since before Christ was born and overturned at least a dozen dogmas and doctrines the Church had taught and held since the first century after Christ.
He wanted to start the Church of Luther where Christ adapted to him rather than him adapting to Christ and that's exactly what he did.
Luther deciding things the Bible says are sins are no longer sins isn't a case of Luther recognizing corruption, it's a case of institutionalizing the corruptions he preferred to the ones he saw.
You appear to be a proponent of purchasing forgiveness through payment to the local priest.
Are you a priest?
No. He recognized the OT canon as did the Hebrews.
It did not include the apocrypha.
He was about more than abuses like selling indulgences, but wanted the Church to adopt heresies, including wanting to rewrite and throw books out of the Bible to support his “faith alone” theology.
Magnify his faults and always defending the RCCs, eh?
Their views on canonicity are binding on Christians ... why, exactly?
Ncie try. But don’t shoot the messenger when the message is 100% correct. Rashputin is simply stating the obvious about the case of Luther’s relationship to the Bible which. My wish is that Pope Francis understood the message of Rashputin, but then again, Francis was a high school teacher and not smart enough to understand exegesis. Luther’s relation to the Bible is clear. Just pick up King James and New Jerusalem Bibles and compare the table of contents, the Gospel of John, the Canticles of Solomon and notice the differences. I wish Pope Francis would donate 30 hours of his time to compare the two Bibles. Fun, interesting and clear. Luther was politically motivated and well, unethical, immoral, wicked and probably obsessed.
And if you need a good reason to get angry with me and hate me, just realized that I drive 60 mph in the fast lanes on the freeways in Los Angeles while texting on my phone. Yup. Shoot the messenger.
Those books were called “deuterocanonical” by the Catholic Council of Trent.
Nice try, but they aren’t meant as anything more than possible history, according to the Catholic church.
The Catholic church threw those books out in the Council of Trent.
It’s just that the bible you use keeps them in, despite their lack of canonical legitimacy, according to the Catholic church.
The deuterocanonical books were in the Septuagint Greek Old Testament, translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic a couple of centuries before Christ. The current Hebrew Scriptures were not fixed by rabbinical Judaism until about one century or so AD, so the deuterocanonicals are legitimately in the Christian bible. But Luther also wanted change the New Testament canon, calling St James an “epistle of straw” and calling for its expulsion.
You are correct..glad they changed it. So I’ll post the other title here:
The Apostate speaks again.
Ha ha ha ha....yeah.
Great link. Thank you.
Those books were called deuterocanonical by the Catholic Council of Trent.
Nice try, but they arent meant as anything more than possible history, according to the Catholic church.
—— Great link. Thank you.
It is a great link. What I like about Wikipedia is that their goal is to provide as accurate and complete a description of a subject as possible, with a primary objective being to present the points of view of all interested parties.
If you go to the following link,
you will find that Judaism and most Protestant versions of the Bible exclude these books. But contrary to the above statement that these books “aren’t meant as anything more than possible history, according to the Catholic church [sic],” these books are considered canonical by the Catholic Church. The following excerpt from the link describes the history of the treatment of these books by the Catholic Church.
Philip Schaff says that “the council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, ... This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I and Gelasius I (A.D. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books. Schaff says that this canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session,” although as the Catholic Encyclopedia reports, “in the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals...Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity,” but that the countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Roman Catholic Old Testament.
The Council of Trent supported the decisions about which books to include in the canon that were determined by earlier councils in 1546. While the majority at Trent supported this decision there were participants in the minority who disagreed with the books accepted in the canon. Among the minority, at Trent, were Cardinals Seripando and Cajetan, the latter an opponent of Luther at Augsburg. The Fathers in session at Trent confirmed the statements of earlier regional councils which also included the deuterocanonical books, such as the Synod of Hippo (393), and the Councils of Carthage of 397, and provided “the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon” by the Roman Catholic Church.
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.