Did the Catholic Church authorize the murder of Martin Luther?

[GKC]

same person.

I think one can find an operable distinction.

GKC

 

[rinnie]

I understand your point. Mine is that, historically, it is incorrect (and I am not saying you are doing so) to try to make a distinction between the role of the visible institutional Church and that of the visible, institutional secular authority, in the process of dealing with heretics, including executing them. They were acting, together, toward one end. One may, as Contarini said, raise the idea of the invisible Church, but the visible one acted in concert with the authorities, in that time in history.

GKC,

But that is the distinction that is never understood. Let me ask you this, is there any other Church besides the Catholic Church that claim that their Church and Christ are one?

We are taught that the RCC is indeed led by the power of the Holy Spirit, and leads us into all truth from the time of Pentecost.

You cannot say the Holy Spirit is who led the leaders of the time to do so. You must make it a point to separate the leaders from the Holy Spirit. It is crucial.

So in your eyes it is historical incorrect to make a distinction, in my eyes it is of utmost importance.

As I have asked you, was the God of Saul the same God of St Paul? IF not why did Jesus not say Saul Saul why are you Persecuting ME?

 

[rinnie]

I think one can find an operable distinction.

GKC

I am listening?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

But that is the distinction that is never understood. Let me ask you this, is there any other Church besides the Catholic Church that claim that their Church and Christ are one?

We are taught that the RCC is indeed led by the power of the Holy Spirit, and leads us into all truth from the time of Pentecost.

You cannot say the Holy Spirit is who led the leaders of the time to do so. You must make it a point to separate the leaders from the Holy Spirit. It is crucial.

So in your eyes it is historical incorrect to make a distinction, in my eyes it is of utmost importance.

As I have asked you, [SIGN]was the God of Saul the same God of St Paul? IF not why did Jesus not say Saul Saul why are you Persecuting ME?

]

Again this to me is a very important question, what is your honest answer to it?

 

[GKC]

I am listening?

Paul didn’t hear a voice saying “Paul, Paul…”.

GKC

 

[GKC]

But that is the distinction that is never understood. Let me ask you this, is there any other Church besides the Catholic Church that claim that their Church and Christ are one?

We are taught that the RCC is indeed led by the power of the Holy Spirit, and leads us into all truth from the time of Pentecost.

You cannot say the Holy Spirit is who led the leaders of the time to do so. You must make it a point to separate the leaders from the Holy Spirit. It is crucial.

So in your eyes it is historical incorrect to make a distinction, in my eyes it is of utmost importance.

As I have asked you, was the God of Saul the same God of St Paul? IF not why did Jesus not say Saul Saul why are you Persecuting ME?

No, I certainly understand the distinction. But we are going in circles.If the distinction is to be made that the leaders of the Church erred, as much as Saul erred, in persecuting those they persecuted, while the invisible Church, led by Christ, did not, that’s one way to look at it.

But it is historically inaccurate to attempt to shift the deaths (such as occurred, due to heresy convictions), onto the shoulders of the secular authorities. Period. Eventually, one will return to analyzing Exsurge Domine. Which is useless, as has been demonstrated.

GKC

 

[rinnie]

Paul didn’t hear a voice saying “Paul, Paul…”.

GKC

Correct, He said Saul Saul why are you persecuting me. Just an answer to the question I asked would be great!

 

[GKC]

Correct, He said Saul Saul why are you persecuting me. Just an answer to the question I asked would be great!

“IF not why did Jesus not say Saul Saul why are you Persecuting ME?”

What do you think He said?

GKC

 

[phil19034]

The crime that Luther was condemned for was being religious heretic, and that determination would have had to have come from the Church.

No, it’s more complex than that.

Back in those days, being a heretic was against the CIVIL law. Priests would be called in as “expert witnesses” the same way a medical examiner could be called into testify in a criminal case today.

The priests were called to testify and the civil courts issues sentence. Often priests would find loopholes to get the heretics off criminal charges. But if the heretic was extremely outspoken or obvious, like Luther, the priest would not be able to get the off.

This is why during the founding of America, separation of Church and State was such a big deal for them. In Europe, if you were a heretic according to the official state religion(s), then you were breaking the law. These laws were in existence in Europe for thousands of years and well before Christ.

God Bless!

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

[SIGN][/SIGN]
rinnie;12709301:

But that is the distinction that is never understood. Let me ask you this, is there any other Church besides the Catholic Church that claim that their Church and Christ are one?

We are taught that the RCC is indeed led by the power of the Holy Spirit, and leads us into all truth from the time of Pentecost.

You cannot say the Holy Spirit is who led the leaders of the time to do so. You must make it a point to separate the leaders from the Holy Spirit. It is crucial.

So in your eyes it is historical incorrect to make a distinction, in my eyes it is of utmost importance.

As I have asked you, [SIGN]was the God of Saul the same God of St Paul? IF not why did Jesus not say, Saul Saul why are you Persecuting ME?

]

Again this to me is a very important question, what is your honest answer to it?

I put a coma, better?

Again let me ask it more clearly if you truly did not understand. Jesus said to St Paul, who was Saul at the time, Saul Saul why are you persecuting Me. Was the God of Saul the same God of Paul? Yes or No?

 

[rinnie]

No, I certainly understand the distinction. But we are going in circles.If the distinction is to be made that the leaders of the Church erred, as much as Saul erred, in persecuting those they persecuted, while the invisible Church, led by Christ, did not, that’s one way to look at it.

But it is historically inaccurate to attempt to shift the deaths (such as occurred, due to heresy convictions), onto the shoulders of the secular authorities. Period. Eventually, one will return to analyzing Exsurge Domine. Which is useless, as has been demonstrated.

GKC

It does not matter. He was condemned for not what he said as being wrong or right, he was condemned to claiming to know the mind of God. He had no authority to speak in the name of the Spirit. Rather he was correct or incorrect, is not the question, he was condemned for claiming to know the mind of the Spirit of God, no one can do this unless they have authority from God to speak in his name. Only the Pope can do it, without the others.

 

[GKC]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

[SIGN][/SIGN]
I put a coma, better?

Again let me ask it more clearly if you truly did not understand. Jesus said to St Paul, who was Saul at the time, Saul Saul why are you persecuting Me. Was the God of Saul the same God of Paul? Yes or No?

Answer your question. He did say Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me. You seem to have asked why He did not say it.

GKC

 

[GKC]

It does not matter. He was condemned for not what he said as being wrong or right, he was condemned to claiming to know the mind of God. He had no authority to speak in the name of the Spirit. Rather he was correct or incorrect, is not the question, he was condemned for claiming to know the mind of the Spirit of God, no one can do this unless they have authority from God to speak in his name. Only the Pope can do it, without the others.

Which seems to say what I said before, about the analogy you are making. Those of the Church were acting in the role of Saul, in delivering heretics to death. Which doesn’t seem to advance your position.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

It does not matter. He was condemned for not what he said as being wrong or right, he was condemned to claiming to know the mind of God.

That is an ingenious explanation invented, I think, by Jimmy Akin. I know of no support for it whatsoever from the sixteenth century, and I think it’s highly improbable that that’s what Pope Leo or Eck or whoever actually inserted that item into the list was thinking.

As I’ve said a number of times, if you really think you have to take Exsurge Domine as infallible and thus defend everything in it, this explanation is fine to account for why the Holy Spirit allowed Pope Leo to condemn those words.

But if we are talking historically about what was believed and practiced in the sixteenth century, then the explanation just doesn’t fly (any more than I seriously think Pope Boniface was thinking, “it’s necessary for every soul to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, but that shouldn’t scare anyone too much because everyone is subject to me whether they know it or not”).

 

[Contarini]

And I disagree with you Edwin with education of that era, with education hopefully comes wisdom, sometimes wisdom without education. I should have used the word wisdom possibly instead of education of that time. But true wisdom comes from God.

How much do you know about the education of that time?

I think it was more likely to produce wisdom, on the whole, than the education of our time.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

That is an ingenious explanation invented, I think, by Jimmy Akin. I know of no support for it whatsoever from the sixteenth century, and I think it’s highly improbable that that’s what Pope Leo or Eck or whoever actually inserted that item into the list was thinking.

As I’ve said a number of times, if you really think you have to take Exsurge Domine as infallible and thus defend everything in it, this explanation is fine to account for why the Holy Spirit allowed Pope Leo to condemn those words.

But if we are talking historically about what was believed and practiced in the sixteenth century, then the explanation just doesn’t fly (any more than I seriously think Pope Boniface was thinking, “it’s necessary for every soul to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, but that shouldn’t scare anyone too much because everyone is subject to me whether they know it or not”).

Okay Contarini, lets play

The burning of heretics goes against the Holy Spirit! Luther said God does not permit the burning of heretics. The Pope says God does allow it.

Okay does God allow the burning of heretic’s? Depends how you want to look at it. You don’t like Jimmys answer, how about mine.

This statement can be seen many ways.

okay does burning heretics go against the will of the Spirit? Luther said it indeed does. I say it does not. Why?

If the burning of heretics goes against the will of the Spirit, then God does not allow hell, Correct?

Is hell an actual fire, or a burning desire??? Is the stated completely defined? Is there a difference between a physical burning, or a spiritual burning?

But lets put the question into context. Does God allow burning of heretic’s?

Is the Statement God does not allow the Physical burning of heretics? Or is the Statement burning heretic’s goes against the will of God?

My next question, at the end of time, did God not say that he will join the physical and spiritual body, and the ones deemed unfit for heaven will be thrown into the fire?

 

[rinnie]

No, I certainly understand the distinction. But we are going in circles.If the distinction is to be made that the leaders of the Church erred, as much as Saul erred, in persecuting those they persecuted, while the invisible Church, led by Christ, did not, that’s one way to look at it.

But it is historically inaccurate to attempt to shift the deaths (such as occurred, due to heresy convictions), onto the shoulders of the secular authorities. Period. Eventually, one will return to analyzing Exsurge Domine. Which is useless, as has been demonstrated.

GKC

Actually that is not how I am looking at it at all. I am saying that is the St Paul any different then Saul?

Did Saul truly think he was defending the true God as Saul, as he believed he was defending the True God as Paul?

 

[GKC]

Actually that is not how I am looking at it at all. I am saying that is the St Paul any different then Saul?

Did Saul truly think he was defending the true God as Saul, as he believed he was defending the True God as Paul?

It seems to me to be the case. Was Saul correct?

GKC

 

[rinnie]

No, I certainly understand the distinction. But we are going in circles.If the distinction is to be made that the leaders of the Church erred, as much as Saul erred, in persecuting those they persecuted, while the invisible Church, led by Christ, did not, that’s one way to look at it.

But it is historically inaccurate to attempt to shift the deaths (such as occurred, due to heresy convictions), onto the shoulders of the secular authorities. Period. Eventually, one will return to analyzing Exsurge Domine. Which is useless, as has been demonstrated.

GKC

Can’t leave you out GKC. Here is my question for you. (by the way I have great respect for you and Edwin, and your intelligence and knowledge of the faith) which is why I value your answers very much.

Okay Burning Heretics goes against the will of the Spirit, I got another twist for you

Here it goes.

I believe that although God gave me Free will, and if I choose to use that free will to sin, or not to sin, my free will never overpowers the will of God or his Holy Spirit.

Now lets say I do something that is not looked upon as correct to you or others, Am I overpowering God, or does God choose to let me use my free will. And if he chooses to let me use it, and I was involved in burning heretics, did my will overpower the will of God. Another wards burning heretics went against the will of God.

God did not let it happen right? Well then how did it happen? My will beat the will of God?

Just another twist.

See I was taught nothing goes against the will of God, God lets things happened although I cannot understand why, he still is the boss. Like it may look like the devil wins but he never did.

Like God let his Son die on the cross, it was the WILL of the Father was it not? I can’t explain how, but lets just keep the question in the context of our thinking.

The burning of heretics goes against the will of the Father.

 

[GKC]

Can’t leave you out GKC. Here is my question for you. (by the way I have great respect for you and Edwin, and your intelligence and knowledge of the faith) which is why I value your answers very much.

Okay Burning Heretics goes against the will of the Spirit, I got another twist for you

Here it goes.

I believe that although God gave me Free will, and if I choose to use that free will to sin, or not to sin, my free will never overpowers the will of God or his Holy Spirit.

Now lets say I do something that is not looked upon as correct to you or others, Am I overpowering God, or does God choose to let me use my free will. And if he chooses to let me use it, and I was involved in burning heretics, did my will overpower the will of God. Another wards burning heretics went against the will of God.

God did not let it happen right? Well then how did it happen? My will beat the will of God?

Just another twist.

See I was taught nothing goes against the will of God, God lets things happened although I cannot understand why, he still is the boss. Like it may look like the devil wins but he never did.

Like God let his Son die on the cross, it was the WILL of the Father was it not? I can’t explain how, but lets just keep the question in the context of our thinking.

The burning of heretics goes against the will of the Father.

Fascinating, and thank you for the kind words.

Myself, I am a history buff. Not so much on the Inquisition(s), as other topics, but enough that I have 10-12 books on the subject. History tells us things about the Inquisitions(s) and the players in them, as one may read in such books. One thing is as stated in the Kamen quote I gave above, and in another place earlier:

“These” (the secular authorities) "were obliged to carry out the sentence of blood which the Holy Office was forbidden by law to carry out. In all this there was no pretense that the Inquisition was not the body directly and fully responsible for the deaths that occurred’ ".

Which point is the reason I posted in this thread. History, that is .I am of little use outside of it.

I like your last sentence.

GKC