Catholics who know history: please answer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jesuspaiditall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I studied John Wycliffe and found this general information.

After his death his works were declared heretical. They were ordered to be burned. The Council of Constance re-condemned them and made sure that they were all burned. Then, fifty years after his death, HIS BONES WERE DUG UP, BURNED, AND THROWN INTO THE RIVER BY ORDER OF THE POPE! To me, the infallible successor of Peter, the head of the Church, should not do such a thing. Can you imagine Jesus doing such a horrible thing? Absolutely not.
 
Jesuspaiditall said:
I studied John Wycliffe and found this general information.

After his death his works were declared heretical. They were ordered to be burned. The Council of Constance re-condemned them and made sure that they were all burned. Then, fifty years after his death, HIS BONES WERE DUG UP, BURNED, AND THROWN INTO THE RIVER BY ORDER OF THE POPE! To me, the infallible successor of Peter, the head of the Church, should not do such a thing. Can you imagine Jesus doing such a horrible thing? Absolutely not.
Click to expand...
I do not think that I have ever addressed this topic with you, so I do not mind stating it again.

Infallibility has nothing to do with personal behavior. It ONLY has to do with teaching on matters of faith and morals in a particular way. How a pope acts has nothing to do with it.
 
cthulhubryan said:
It was as justifiable as flooding your house to put out a cigarette.

There were problems, mainly at the far ends of Christendom and Luther (as all men are wont to do) over reacted. For some of this he later recanted but that particular Pandora’s box had already been opened.

As they say, Pride goeth before the fall.
Click to expand...
Pride goeth before destruction. Or perhaps, before disaster.

GKC
 
:confused:

That there are folks who still believe that the selling of indulgences was not taught and that the pope did not have full knowledge of it.
I guess there are people who believe the earth is flat.
 
Hisalone said:
:confused:

That there are folks who still believe that the selling of indulgences was not taught and that the pope did not have full knowledge of it.
I guess there are people who believe the earth is flat.
Click to expand...
Show the Church documents that allows for the selling of indulgences.

Show that the pope knew that it occured in the way that it occured and that he endorsed it, allowed it, or commanded it.
 
Hisalone said:
:rotfl::rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Any reasonable person has to admit the evidence.
Tetzel traveled under papal bull.
witnesses

aloha.net/~mikesch/tetzel.htm
philatelydominicanorder.org/john_tetzel.htm
Click to expand...
Most of the first link’s quotes were from anti-CAtholic writers. That does not bother me if what they say is true. If you read what Tetzel said, he never said that he was selling them apart from confession, or selling them at all.

Besides, not to cast doubt upon your source on that, but why does that site have 666 beside the Catholic link?

aloha.net/~mikesch/
aloha.net/~mikesch/rc-links.htm

You guys tell me if it is anti-CAtholic. Just click on it.

Your hate has made you blind.

Now, the second link, the first paragraph reads as such.
Johann Tetzel, also spelled Tezel, was born c.1465 in Pirna, Saxony Germany. His preaching on indulgences, considered by many of his contemporaries to be an abuse of the sacrament of penance, sparked Martin Luther’s revolt.
Click to expand...
I’ll be. It says right there that it was considered an abuse.

In fact, that article proves what I said to be correct.

Again, show me the Church documents that said it was acceptable to sell indulgences in the way you say it was done.
 
Contarini said:
Well, I’m not a Catholic, but I would distinguish three main reasons for the Reformation.
…

Was it justifiable? As a split within Christianity, no. Some of its ideas were valuable, but they should have been pursued within the framework of Catholicism. Luther’s teachings were not the Gospel, but only one wacky and interesting interpretation of the Gospel.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I join with another poster in thanking you for the well thought out post. I deleted most of it here only because I wanted to focus on this last paragraph. The issues “coulda, shoulda” been pursued within the framework of Catholicism.
Instead what we see is a clash, along with all the other historical changes that were taking place at the same time. Much of what happened was reactionary.
Yes, indulgences were being sold. This does not mean that the Church hierarchy approved. Did it turn a blind eye thinking these abuses would go away of their own accord?
Before Vatican II, prayers would be assigned a set number of years indulgence, or forgiveness of time spent in purgatory. Today, we read “a partial” indulgence with no specified time frame. Was the laity informed of the impropriety of paying for indulgences? That which we have freely received is to be freely given.
 
ralphinal said:
I do not think that I have ever addressed this topic with you, so I do not mind stating it again.

Infallibility has nothing to do with personal behavior. It ONLY has to do with teaching on matters of faith and morals in a particular way. How a pope acts has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter what infallibility means, if someone is the head of the Church, successor of Peter who was appointed by Jesus, he CAN’T do that! It’s wrong to dig up someone’s bones and burn them. Jesus would never tell someone to do that. Nor would Paul or Barnabas or the Twelve. Pope Martin did an EVIL, cruel deed in 1428.
 
Jesuspaiditall said:
It doesn’t matter what infallibility means, if someone is the head of the Church, successor of Peter who was appointed by Jesus, he CAN’T do that! It’s wrong to dig up someone’s bones and burn them. Jesus would never tell someone to do that. Nor would Paul or Barnabas or the Twelve. Pope Martin did an EVIL, cruel deed in 1428.
Click to expand...
So, no one who is a leader of the Church can ever make a mistake? Or suffer from possessing a temper?

This is just another case of a human being a flawed person.
 
Catholics still refuse to admit how vile and corrupt much of the RCC administration was for an extended period of time. They did not want change they refused to change. It took the Reformation to have that change come about.
 
Hisalone said:
Catholics still refuse to admit how vile and corrupt much of the RCC administration was for an extended period of time. They did not want change they refused to change. It took the Reformation to have that change come about.
Click to expand...
And some Protestants seem to refuse to admit that not every Catholic Bishop was or is evil. Nor do they seem willing to pull the beam out of their own eye.
 
Jesuspaiditall said:
So you’re saying that some indulgence preachers corrupted it, but that most of the Church remained in the Truth?
Tell me if I misunderstood. 😉
Click to expand...
There were corruptions in The Church, which is why there was a Counter-Reformation from within The Church to make corrections. Please don’t think of a Reformation, there were at least three: The Lutheran Reformation, the Radical Reformation, and the English Reformation, all radically different and at odds with each other. Luther made the mistake of reversing the historic order. Instead of understanding the Bible as part of the Tradition of the Church and a creature of it, he made the Church a creature of the Bible. Zwinglig in Switzerland took this and subjected it to often violent Rationalism creating the Radical Reformation. When he was killed in battle Luther said: “God has gathered to Himself a great man of faith. Why the hell did He have to wait so long to do it?” The English Reformation was entirely political, the power lust of the Englich Crown. In fact, all “reformations” had a political aspect. The German Princes protected Luther because they could not justify their defyance of the Holy Roman Emperor to their people otherwise. Zwinglig was a meglomaineac, as was King Henry. The tragic fact is that there is only one Trinitarian Baptism into the one Holy Roman Church, even if it is celebrated by a pagan. The question is: How obedient is one to one’s Baptism? It’s an interesting study. Twenty years ago I set out to be a Lutheran Pastor. I ended up under Catholic Holy Orders, a teacher and lecturer. Good luck in your studies.
 
ralphinal said:
And some Protestants seem to refuse to admit that not every Catholic Bishop was or is evil. Nor do they seem willing to pull the beam out of their own eye.
Click to expand...
Not every Catholic bishop was evil
God saves a remnant for Himself, there has been a remnant within the RCC.
When discussing the Reformation it must be acknowledged the base, profane within much of the hierarcy that abused and neglected the souls that were intrusted to them.
We would be willing to extend a hand of grace and mercy if you were not so bent of proclaiimg that you are the deposit of faith and the fullness of truth, and that you are the true churc of God.
No you must repent first and then mercy shall be extended, that is how it works
 
coolduude said:
We have repented. JPII did that for us.
Click to expand...
If you have repented you would understand the Reformation since you still accuse the Protestants of following Satan you have not aknowledged that the Reformation was a result of Catholic misdeeds.
 
Hisalone said:
Not every Catholic bishop was evil
God saves a remnant for Himself, there has been a remnant within the RCC.
When discussing the Reformation it must be acknowledged the base, profane within much of the hierarcy that abused and neglected the souls that were intrusted to them.
We would be willing to extend a hand of grace and mercy if you were not so bent of proclaiimg that you are the deposit of faith and the fullness of truth, and that you are the true churc of God.
No you must repent first and then mercy shall be extended, that is how it works
Click to expand...
See, this shows some of the problems that we have.

We will admit that people within the Church did things that were wrong.

We cannot and will not admit that the doctrine proclaimed by the Reformers, which for the first 1500 years of the Church was considered heresy, to suddenly be correct because you want it to be.

Besides, Jesus said that we should be merciful WITHOUT expecting mercy back or mercy preceeding.
 
Hisalone said:
If you have repented you would understand the Reformation since you still accuse the Protestants of following Satan you have not aknowledged that the Reformation was a result of Catholic misdeeds.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying ALL Catholics, including me, say Protestants are following Satan?
Give me a break! This is why Catholics get mad at people like you. You make false assumptions, and play on it. And, for the most part, you can’t bear to hear the oher side of the strory when it comes to debates. You guys (not you specificaly, but I’m guessing you do by the way you responded to me) block us out. It is so frustrating.

And no, I never say “Protestants follow Satan” so don’t say I do.
 
Hisalone said:
If you have repented you would understand the Reformation since you still accuse the Protestants of following Satan you have not aknowledged that the Reformation was a result of Catholic misdeeds.
Click to expand...
We do not accuse/I do not accuse/The Catholic Church founded by Jesus does not accuse now, nor did it, nor did I, nor did we any of the Protestants of following Satan.

To the topic, another contributing factor:

Martin Luther was so scrupulous that it was nothing for him to spend 6 hours in Confession. He couldn’t reconcile that God loves him and God is merciful and God gives His Graces, so, he had a disconnect, after being goaded by those using him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top