P
PRmerger
Guest
So are you of the position, then, that the inspired authors were indeed given the charism of infallibility?
I assume that we agree that the authors of Sacred Scripture were actually INSPIRED?
- Status
I assume that we agree that the authors of Sacred Scripture were actually INSPIRED?
C
Contarini
Guest
I am frustrated by the fact that you’re posting this nonsense again.
Do you seriously think that Luther was denying the reality of hell or divine judgment on Sodom?
Or do you seriously think that the Pope was saying, “Luther, I know you didn’t mean to deny that God pours out vengeance by fire, but in your admirable rejection of the human practice of burning heretics as a punishment you used language that might be taken to mean that, and I’m setting the record straight?”
Do you seriously doubt that
- Luther meant to say that civil authorities shouldn’t inflict burning on heretics as a temporal punishment, and that
- The Pope knew he meant that and was saying that he was wrong?
If you don’t doubt these things, you are playing games with language by staking your defense of ED 33 on a meaning you know no one actually gave it at the time.
Now which is it? Answer me honestly.
Edwin
=
news.va/en/news/pope-francis-triumphalism-is-a-temptation-of-chris
But that said, I certainly consider the DC’s part of the canon, and I am Lutheran. Apparently, as I mentioned before, you seem to think he had greater authority to “remove” books than I do.
Jon
No matter what your opinion, Steve, God makes the determination, not any one bishop in any communion.
I disagree.
news.va/en/news/pope-francis-triumphalism-is-a-temptation-of-chris
I wasn’t aware that the order in which the books appeared was canonically defined.
But that said, I certainly consider the DC’s part of the canon, and I am Lutheran. Apparently, as I mentioned before, you seem to think he had greater authority to “remove” books than I do.
And neither did Luther. Unless, as I said, you think Luther had greater authority than the Lutheran Confessions did.
Luther’s translation had 74 books.
Jon
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Don’t be rolling eyes… Your wording specifically said that you would lose your salvation by leaving the Catholic Church. The only way to lose something is by having it first. There is no other reasonable way around this.sheesh
846
" Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuseeither to enter it or to remain in it.
Here’s what stevieb said in post # 532.
And here’s what Dominus Iesus says:
Thanks for the reference.
Can you find something to this same effect in your link prior to the Great Schism?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
He has not learned from the Apologetics thread…
Yes. Even the Confessions refer to Tobit and 2 Maccabees as scripture.
A very good link about the subject.
latifhakigaba.blogspot.com/2010/02/did-luther-throw-out-books-of-bible.html
Jon
G
guanophore
Guest
The Source of the infallibility, of course!
John 16:13–16
13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.“
S
steve_b
Guest
Wait till the end of the page. It’s not nonsense
C:
It’s obvious You think Luther was directing that at the Church burning heretics. How did Luther die? Was he burned at the stake? No.
Why? Especially taking #33 in reverse, then the Church thinks just the opposite, that burning heretics is okay and NOT against the will of the HS? If that’s the case He should have been burned at the stake immediately. If burning heretics at the stake was okay with the Church and the will of the HS, Why wouldn’t the Church make good on Luther’s paranoia and burn him at the stake immediately? Afterall he was now a celebrated heretic. But Instead, to satisy Luther’s paranoia, the Church gurantees Luther safe passage to and from Rome to meet with the pope. Why do that if burning heretics at the stake is perfectly okay? Did he take up the offer from the Church? No. Did some mob ever get to him and burn him at the stake? No
200+ years before he was born, the IV Lateran council, in case there was any doubt in peoples minds about the Church position on Church involvement in executions, that council removed all doubt. The Church was not to be involved in executions. That’s canon law.
So let’s look at why the Church says # 33 burning heretics is against the will of the HS, is error.
You think Luther is thinking short ball (burning at the stake) in the Church calling Luther’s statement error, I say the Church is thinking long ball, one dieing in heresy
C:
We know what the pope said and unless you have docs to the contrary, we know Luther said nothing, he ignored the pope.
Luther, Exsurge Domine, Bull of Leo X June 15 1520
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm
then came
Decet Romanum Pontificem Jan 3 1521
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm
Look at the language of the 2nd doc. Is the Church out for his head? No. Any call to execute him? No. Any Call to burn him at the stake?No
Unless you know differently, Luther died 24 years after this, of natural causes, in his own bed.
C:
If Luther “meant” to say something he would have said it.
Luther could have explained himself, and he had plenty of time to do it, but he didn’t. Unless you have the documents proving otherwise, Luther answered NONE of the errors he was charged with nor did he change his direction.
I draw your attention to the preamble of Decet Romanum Pontificem . full text linked above. Note the text I highlighted below. That’s what I’m talking about. This is the thinking of the Church dealing with Luther and yes for error #33 as well. The Church in his case is thinking long ball, warning of Divine vengence and damnation.
Preamble
Through the power given him from God, the Roman Pontiff has been appointed to administer spiritual and temporal punishments as each case severally deserves. The purpose of this is the repression of the wicked designs of misguided men, who have been so captivated by the debased impulse of their evil purposes as to forget the fear of the Lord, to set aside with contempt canonical decrees and apostolic commandments, and to dare to formulate new and false dogmas and to introduce the evil of schism into the Church of God—or to support, help and adhere to such schismatics, who make it their business to cleave asunder the seamless robe of our Redeemer and the unity of the orthodox faith. Hence it befits the Pontiff, lest the vessel of Peter appear to sail without pilot or oarsman, to take severe measures against such men and their followers, and by multiplying punitive measures and by other suitable remedies to see to it that these same overbearing men, devoted as they are to purposes of evil, along with their adherents, should not deceive the multitude of the simple by their lies and their deceitful devices, nor drag them along to share their own error and ruination, contaminating them with what amounts to a contagious disease. It also befits the Pontiff, having condemned the schismatics, to ensure their still greater confounding by publicly showing and openly declaring to all faithful Christians how formidable are the censures and punishments to which such guilt can lead; to the end that by such public declarationthey themselves may return, in confusion and remorse, to their true selves, making an unqualified withdrawal from the prohibited conversation, fellowship and (above all) obedience to such accursed excommunicates; by this means they may escape divine vengeance and any degree of participation in their damnation.
Escape Divine vengence? Escape damnation? That’s the work of the HS. That’s escaping hell fire. NOT burning at the stake or what have you. My approach to this subject has been correct.
S
spina1953
Guest
HI SteveB: You might check out Luther’s An Assertion of AA the Articles Wrongly Condemned by the Papal Bull of 1520 is response to the Papal Bull Exsurge Domine. in defending the 41 errors the document pointer out in Luther’s writings teachings and doctrines up to that time.
S
steve_b
Guest
Jon
It doesn’t just come from “any one bishop.”
Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 , διχοστασίας dichostasia* = *division / dissension / factions /sedition same word in both Rom 16:17. And Gal 5:19…
Read Gal 5:21 for the consequence of which I spoke. “will not inherit the kingdom of God” i.e. one goes to hell
Where did Paul get those grave warnings and disasterous consequences? From the inspiration of the HS…agreed? Where did the HS get that teaching from that He inspired Paul with? It was Jesus John 16:12-15
So iow, Jesus who will judge everyone, is telling us in advance through the HS through Paul, how He will judge…and in particular the sin I was refering to, if one dies in that sin.
J:
There is no disagreement with that link. People can be triumphalistic but truth is not, at least in the sense when I was disagreeing with you .
J:
How many 1545 versions of Luther’s bible are there? You’re not denying the fact he moved canonical books into apocryphal status are you?
J:
Lutheran confessions? please describe them for me, and what was the date?
J:
only 66 were canonical
That means the others have no status as scripture. You know that’s true from his opinion of the apocrypha.
S
steve_b
Guest
do you have a link?
S
steve_b
Guest
And my explanation was 846
" Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuseeither to enter it or to remain in it.
I:
It doesn’t contradict what I said
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Steve B; Yes, This is the site I got the information from to read; An Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned by the Papal Bull. www.godrules.net/library/luther/new 1luther-c4 htm Under the title Works of Martin Luther-An Argument-in Defense. I Binged it as I do not use Google.
D
dronald
Guest
Settled at the Fourth Lateran Council? Have you read the part on the Church being completely okay with the extermination of heretics?
S
steve_b
Guest
I sense you have all these issues on what amounts to speed dial.
I hope this helps. Keep in mind those canons were written in Latin.
#39
the word in question, means expel not exterminate as in kill
S
steve_b
Guest
Thanks
I’m not sure I found what I was looking for. I’ll keep looking through the materials.In the meantime, there’s this from the list of errors,
As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men.
[snip] for space
But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.
Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.
Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father’s love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.
We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.
{And even though the love of righteousness and virtue did not take him away from sin and the hope of forgiveness did not lead him to penance, perhaps the terror of the pain of punishment may move him. Thus we beseech and remind this Martin, his supporters and accomplices of his holy orders and the described punishment. We ask him earnestly that he and his supporters, adherents and accomplices desist within sixty days (which we wish to have divided into three times twenty days, counting from the publication of this bull at the places mentioned below) from preaching, both expounding their views and denouncing others, from publishing books and pamphlets concerning some or all of their errors. Furthermore, all writings which contain some or all of his errors are to be burned.
[snip] for space
If, however, this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices, much to our regret, should stubbornly not comply with the mentioned stipulations within the mentioned period, we shall, following the teaching of the holy Apostle Paul, who teaches us to avoid a heretic after having admonished him for a first and a second time, condemn this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices as barren vines which are not in Christ, preaching an offensive doctrine contrary to the Christian faith and offend the divine majesty, to the damage and shame of the entire Christian Church, and diminish the keys of the Church as stubborn and public heretics.}*" .
The 2 documents clearly show an attempt to work with Luther. The feeling was not mutual. If Luther gave his response to the pope on that list of errors, It doesn’t look like the pope received anything either at the time of this document, where discussions had been going on for a year, or by the time the 2nd document was written either…
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Steve B : You could just look up Exsurge Domine and get the document online and also just look up An Assertions of All the Articles Condemned by the Papal Bull which is what I did then looked at the various site till I found what I wanted. Hope that helps. Also I use Bing and not Goggle if that helps any. What you posted sounds good to me, but think you can get the whole thing online by doing what I did. Peace and good luck.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, it is.
The church is never “immediate” with such disciplinary issues. Exsurge Domine was only a call to repentance and withdrawal of authority to preach and teach. It states in the document that, if Luther would abandon his errors, the Church would receive him with Fatherly welcome. (see the current thread on Exsurge Domine).
Codswallop Steve. Luther had every right to expect that he could become imprisoned or “exterminiated” (again, see above referenced Papal Bull) for his ideas.
No, they simply press upon the secular rulers whom they have crowned and support to do the dirty work for them. Honestly Steve….read it!
For after the empire had been transferred by the Roman Church from the Greeks to these same Germans, our predecessors and we always took the Church’s advocates and defenders from among them. Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the** German emperors in behalf of the Church’s independence, freedom, and the expulsion and extermination of all heretics f**rom Germany. Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance.
Actually, he was openly defiant, wrote four tracts in response, and made a public spectacle of burning the Bull. We are way beyond ignoring!
Look at the language of the 2nd doc. Is the Church out for his head?
I think you are in denial, Steve.
Because the German princes chose to abduct him and hide him for their own benefit.
It appears you have a great deal of Reformation History ahead of you.
Study is good. Research is good. Learning is good.
Then I am glad that you have been able to comfortably persuade yourself.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Steve B: Luther stared his teachings and doctrines from about 1515 before posting his 95 thesis. By 1520 The CC became concerned about what Luther was teaching and the doctrines he preached. The CC in turn decided to look into the matter and a council was called which was not up to the task and so a committee was stared with Eck who was supposed to know more about Luther’s writings, teachings and doctrines at least up to that time 1520. They did not examine all of the writings of Luther’s that were done up till them but most. They cam to the conclusion that at least 41 were errors some heretical and some questionable and needed more examination before deciding on them. The Papal Bull asked Luther after pointing out those 41 errors the CC though needed recanting and asked Luther to recant them; under pain of excommunication.
At first Luther did not believe that there was any Papal Bull against him or asking him to recant and thought it was by his enemies. When he finely realized that the papal Bull was real, he published a pamphlet called An Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned by the papal Bull, I understand that Luther also wrote three more tracks concerning the papal Bull, in which Luther was extremely vile towards the Pope and what the CC taught. Afterwards the CC had not choice but to excommunicate Luther. Luther of course could have explained his position in a civilized manor but choose not to.
S
steve_b
Guest
It’s not nonsense
g:
I read the document many times. It’s an attempt to stress the consequences of his actions and the possibilirt of redemption. It was a balanced document. However, 7 months after that document Luther was excommunicated.
g:
Re: exterminate, keep reading
g:
That doesn’t say anything of the kind.
g:
Exsurge Domine is originally in Latin. English translations tend to sometimes really screw up the original language.
Extermination there, comes from the Latin latin-dictionary.net/definition/20066/extermino-exterminare-exterminavi-exterminatus
You see it doesn’t mean what you think. Now don’t you feel better?
g:
that too
- Status