EXSURGE DOMINE - Condemning The Errors Of Martin Luther

[reen12]

I find it of interest, to follow exchanges, between members of Christian Churches.

What is the one thing God cannot do?
God cannot contradict Himself, while remaining Deity.

God gave us the capacity for logical reasoning, because
He knew how critical this capacity would be…when evaluating
arguments offered - as to that which constitutes ‘reality.’

In that venture, premises are all - granted, or not granted.

Faith is not ‘illogical,’ once given premises are granted.
From that point, forward, the canons of logic may be
applied, in both generating - and defending - theological statements.

The entire discussion, here, rests upon a premise.
------>Catholic Church, as infallible teacher.

Exsurge Domine is cited, followed by an invitation
to share thought, on same.

The premise: ‘Magisterium = infallible teaching, in matters
of faith and morals’ - has to be rigorously defended…anterior to
a consideration of any given document: in this instance, Exsurge Domine.

As to granting consideraton of any given document, of the CC, I said and I meant:

reen12

One does not spend time and energy debating the quaint.

The premise, posited: Magisterium = infallible, is foundational - to any consideration
of a downstream document.

Not:
You are required to answer the question - or my argument
is correct - and demonstated insuperable…QED, in terms of logic.

This assertion of a right to name the ‘order’ of questions, is just that. Simple assertion.

Logically - far downstream…from the critical issue of ‘infallible magisterium.’

Insisting that the canons of logic be applied, in theological exchange,
may be annoying - yet remains requisite - to any endeavor to dis-cover the ‘truth.’

This is why it has been said: ‘Philosophy is the handmaid of theology.’
In terms: epistemical, ontological, and logical ‘thought.’

Christ as “Logos,” the ‘Word’ - exemplifies the foreground nature of metaphysics.

Christ as* Logos*, expresses both epistemological
and ontological issues. Issues of ‘knowlege’ and ‘being.’

Philosophy really is servant of the word, and the Word.

Those who accept Jesus of Nazareth as Lord, need the canons of logic -
that his Father gave to us, Him knowing that we’d need them - in intelligenty
‘defending’ Jesus, as Verbum Dei.

reen12

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I find it of interest, to follow exchanges, between members of Christian Churches.

What is the one thing God cannot do?
God cannot contradict Himself, while remaining Deity.

God gave us the capacity for logical reasoning, because
He knew how critical this capacity would be…when evaluating
arguments offered - as to that which constitutes ‘reality.’

In that venture, premises are all - granted, or not granted.

Faith is not ‘illogical,’ once given premises are granted.
From that point, forward, the canons of logic may be
applied, in both generating - and defending - theological statements.

The entire discussion, here, rests upon a premise.
------>Catholic Church, as infallible teacher.

Exsurge Domine is cited, followed by an invitation
to share thought, on same.

The premise: ‘Magisterium = infallible teaching, in matters
of faith and morals’ - has to be rigorously defended…anterior to
a consideration of any given document: in this instance, Exsurge Domine.

As to granting consideraton of any given document, of the CC, I said and I meant:

reen12

The premise, posited: Magisterium = infallible, is foundational - to any consideration
of a downstream document.

Not:
You are required to answer the question - or my argument
is correct - and demonstated insuperable…QED, in terms of logic.

This assertion of a right to name the ‘order’ of questions, is just that. Simple assertion.

Logically - far downstream…from the critical issue of ‘infallible magisterium.’

Insisting that the canons of logic be applied, in theological exchange,
may be annoying - yet remains requisite - to any endeavor to dis-cover the ‘truth.’

This is why it has been said: ‘Philosophy is the handmaid of theology.’
In terms: epistemical, ontological, and logical ‘thought.’

Christ as “Logos,” the ‘Word’ - exemplifies the foreground nature of metaphysics.

Christ as* Logos*, expresses both epistemological
and ontological issues. Issues of ‘knowlege’ and ‘being.’

Philosophy really is servant of the word, and the Word.

Those who accept Jesus of Nazareth as Lord, need the canons of logic -
that his Father gave to us, Him knowing that we’d need them - in intelligenty
‘defending’ Jesus, as Verbum Dei.

reen12

I feel like I just read a geometry theorem from back in my college days converted to theology. Well done, but, HUH? LOL Just kidding, great post but a tad overwhelming and confusing…

 

[reen12]

quote: gurneyhalleck1

I feel like I just read a geometry theorem from back in my college days converted to theology. Well done, but, HUH? LOL Just kidding, great post but a tad overwhelming and confusing…

I didn’t ‘get’ geometry at all. I can’t think in terms of numbers.http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

Yet metaphysical thought came easily.

There’s no mystery, here. These are polysyllabic words,
meant as ‘shorthand.’ It’s actually quite easily understood.

Metaphysics =

epistemology - the study of what man can know, and with
what degree certainty, may he know

ontology = the study of the ‘being.’

Such as: ‘Man is a rational animal.’
[Christian view: man is a rational animal, endowed by God with an immortal soul.]

It’s all shorthand. Buzz words. Yet the matters indicated, by
same buzz words, may be of profound importance. [for example:
when does life begin? The entire abortion debate centers on
this very point.]

Been speaking this way since 1954 - when handed the
larger Baltimore Catechism. A friend, who was also catechized
through this venue, called to mind that I would take to philosophy,
like a duck to water, because I was taught
Scholastic theology, starting at age 8, via the Baltimore Catechism.
[The ‘mindset’ was inculcated, early.]

I just took that ball, and ran down the field - much later -
crossing under the goal posts, with a degree in philosophy.
I did verrrry well, at this, happily. :whacky:

The point that I am at pains to make is this:

Once the *belief *“The Magisterium is infallible, when teaching
on matters of faith and morals” is accepted as true
then same constitutes a granted premise =
something held to be true -----> at the outset of debate

Then the work may begin - from the POV of a Catholic apologist.

The thing to keep one’s eye on, is a display of ‘circular reasoning.’

Circular reasoning -----> when a part of what* is to be* proved, is employed as proof! - in an argument, being advanced down the field, toward the goal line. Once develop an ‘ear’ for circular reasoning, and same can be ferreted out, in a nanosecond, by one who is a connisieur of the application of the canons of logic.
[It’s like an 'ear for music."]

The respect that I extend, in any debate, is based upon the
quality of the argument advanced.

Beliefs = matters that are accepted by faith.

Yet once these beliefs are granted ‘truth value,’ any discussion of same either follows the canons of logic, or it does not.
A person cannot be asked to ignore logic - based on the claim that the topic is theologically based.

State your premises, I grant conditional acceptance of same,
I listen, as the argument is advanced. If same is riddled with
illogic, I note same, smile politely…and continue on my journey.

Never did understand geometry. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

reen12

 

[LutheranDK]

ML wanted to be the leader of the church. he couldnt do in the CC. so he set up to build his own church. he end up with not just one but many.

Peace.

Complete nonsense!
Where did you hear that - RC Sunday School? That’s just about one of the most ridiculous claims I’ve ever heard…

 

[reen12]

The Reformation [re-forming] was set rolling - not because
Luther had any thought of ‘leaving’ the CC, but because
he wished to challenge, in an academic setting, the whole
notion of indulgences.

St. Peter’s Basilica, in Rome, was being renovated, and
this required hefty sums to accomplish this work.
The Dominican, Tetzel, and his agents, spread out and
began the sale of indulgences. Tetzel’s agents set up ‘shop’
and encouraged people to buy an indulgence, while
offering the ditty:

The moment the coin in the coffer rings
The soul from purgatory springs

Almost guarenteed to increase ‘sales.’

Once again - before one gets to speculating as to Luther’s
motives, one must needs address why the monies
collected were not returned, to those who ‘bought’ the
indulgences. Statements to the effect that this was not
‘official’ Church teaching are of particular interest,
because one then asks the question “Since this is the case,
why were the monies not returned?”

If we wish to consider Luther’s ‘motives,’ we must, too,
consider the motives of Church personnel,
in allowing these sales to go forward - happily timed
with the renovation of St. Peter’s Basilica.

Coincidence? I picture the following exchange:

“OK. We need the money for the renovation, but
one does not ‘sell’ indulgences. What will people say?”

“No sweat. This is not ‘official’ Church teaching, and we
can always rely on this fact, if criticized. BTW, how much
has Tetzel sent in, from the dandy work of his agents?
You can always count on Tetzel. There’s a guy who really
knows *fund-raising.” :extrahappy: *

http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

reen12

 

[Mickey]

Statements to the effect that this was not ‘official’ Church teaching are of particular interest,
because one then asks the question “Since this is the case,
why were the monies not returned?”

Very good question.

 

[reen12]

quote: Mickey

Very good question.

You know, Mickey, this discussion has given me an opportunity to consider the topic itself Exsurge Domine] and the ‘platform’ on which this document purportedly ‘stands.’

“Platform” is as follows:

quote: reen12

The

premise: ‘Magisterium = infallible teaching, in matters
of faith and morals’ - has to be rigorously defended…anterior to
a consideration of any given document: in this instance, Exsurge Domine…

The premise, posited: Magisterium = infallible, is foundational - to any consideration
of a downstream document.

Not:
You are required to answer the question - or my argument
is correct - and demonstated insuperable…QED, in terms of logic.

This assertion of a right to name the ‘order’ of questions, is just that. Simple assertion.

Logically - far downstream…from the critical issue of ‘infallible magisterium.’

The ‘order of questions’ becomes critical, as the discussion advances.

reen

 

[Jimmy_B]

Yet another meaningless post from Jimmy B. Jimmy you have such a thing for Luther. If you are so confident in your faith then why write so much about Luther

It’s really getting old. Matter of fact the horse stopped screaming years ago so stop beating it.

Hello inchrist,

Yes, I am very confident in my Roman Catholic faith. It is always easier to be confident when one is defending Truth.

I start threads about historical figures like Martin Luther, because Christian history is important. I learn something from each one of these threads.

If you don’t know where you came from, then how do you truly know what you believe in, or why you believe it?

Martin Luther, John Calvin, King Henry the XIII, King James of England and others from early Protestant history, shine a very bright light on those beliefs found in Protestantism today, which are in error and false; false beliefs that were created by men, these men; and not by God.

I encourage more here to start threads, which ask questions of these men, involved in Protestant history, so that we might understand why there exists so much division in Christianity today.

I hope that this helps, thank you for your post.

Peace

 

[Peter_J]

Statements to the effect that this was not ‘official’ Church teaching are of particular interest, because one then asks the question “Since this is the case, why were the monies not returned?”

I think “realism” answers this question for us: How would you know who gave what money? (Should we have allowed each person who said “I voted for Pat Buccanan” to re-vote? )

How would you even know how much, out of the money that was raised, was based on that “unofficial teaching”?

(Note: If you’re point were simply that there was greed among the hierarchy, then I could definitely agree.)

Why were the monies not returned? I think an equally good question would be “If Luther and company left based on these abuses, why didn’t they instantaneously return when the abused ceased?”

 

[Mickey]

(Should we have allowed each person who said “I voted for Pat Buccanan” to re-vote? )

Was there money extracted for this vote?

Were the people deceived into voting for Pat?

Was there an infallible/supreme Pope and magisterium involved?

 

[Peter_J]

Was there money extracted for this vote?

Were the people deceived into voting for Pat?

Was there an infallible/supreme Pope and magisterium involved?

1. No.
2. That’s what they claim.
3. I seriously doubt it.

 

[reen12]

quote: Peter J

I think “realism” answers this question for us: How would you know who gave what money? (Should we have allowed each person who said “I voted for Pat Buccanan” to re-vote? )

How would you even know how much, out of the money that was raised, was based on that “unofficial teaching”?

(Note: If you’re point were simply that there was greed among the hierarchy, then I could definitely agree.)

Hmmmmm.

And I am right and you are right and everything is quite correct.
-The Mikado [quoted by Peter J]

How’s that?

I waited!! for someone to note this ‘problem.’

"Hey! Haven’t I seen you before? Waddya mean -
‘I bought 30 indulgences.’ Where’s the paperwork?’

"Lady, I don’t care if you’re renovating yer barn,
and need the money back. I got problems, too.

Revised ditty:

The moment the coin in your pocket clinks,
The soul back to purgatory sinks. http://bestsmileys.com/fainting/1.gif

quote: Peter J

Why were the monies not returned? I think an equally good question would be “If Luther and company left based on these abuses, why didn’t they instantaneously return when the abused ceased?”

Because, from what I could ascertain, reading the material,
30 years ago, things had gone too far. The more Rome pushed,
the more Martin Luther pushed back. Part of it, too, was the
lack of timely communication. And there wasn’t a timid soul
for miles - when it came to all the personalities involved.
Substantial ‘egos’ understates the reality, I think.

I keep thinking of modern politics. When someone messes up,
if the faux-pas is acknowledged, immediately, the ‘fire’ is often doused.
[purgatory analogy.] :harp:

John Paul II - addressing the Galileo fiasco, centuries later,
is not a real big help.

Or was it Benedict, and Copernicus? Having a senior moment. :whacky:

I enjoyed your post, Peter J

reen

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Reformation [re-forming] was set rolling - not because
Luther had any thought of ‘leaving’ the CC, but because
he wished to challenge, in an academic setting, the whole
notion of indulgences.

St. Peter’s Basilica, in Rome, was being renovated, and
this required hefty sums to accomplish this work.
The Dominican, Tetzel, and his agents, spread out and
began the sale of indulgences. Tetzel’s agents set up ‘shop’
and encouraged people to buy an indulgence, while
offering the ditty:

The moment the coin in the coffer rings
The soul from purgatory springs

Almost guarenteed to increase ‘sales.’

Once again - before one gets to speculating as to Luther’s
motives, one must needs address why the monies
collected were not returned, to those who ‘bought’ the
indulgences. Statements to the effect that this was not
‘official’ Church teaching are of particular interest,
because one then asks the question “Since this is the case,
why were the monies not returned?”

If we wish to consider Luther’s ‘motives,’ we must, too,
consider the motives of Church personnel,
in allowing these sales to go forward - happily timed
with the renovation of St. Peter’s Basilica.

Coincidence? I picture the following exchange:

“OK. We need the money for the renovation, but
one does not ‘sell’ indulgences. What will people say?”

“No sweat. This is not ‘official’ Church teaching, and we
can always rely on this fact, if criticized. BTW, how much
has Tetzel sent in, from the dandy work of his agents?
You can always count on Tetzel. There’s a guy who really
knows *fund-raising.” :extrahappy: *

http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

reen12

You mean kind like today when many pastors ask for money so people can receive miracles from God?

you know send me 200, 500, 2000 dollars, the more you send the more you get type of thing?

:knight2: :knight2:

 

[Peter_J]

You mean kind like today when many pastors ask for money so people can receive miracles from God?

you know send me 200, 500, 2000 dollars, the more you send the more you get type of thing?

:knight2: :knight2:

Yes, kind of like that.

 

[reen12]

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again,
there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9

Think of the ‘image’ created - in the minds of people of the
16th century. One loved dearly, roasting in the flames of
purgatory. Would one not do nearly anything - to free this soul?
And what of one who could not ‘afford’ an indulgence?
What images arose in that heart, thinking that not enough
money was there to buy an indulgence?

home.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

Then, too, the ability to read, in that period of time, was fairly
limited, in terms of the number of people who could read.
People ‘learned’ of hell and purgatory from stained glass windows?
Or perhaps from ‘glowing’ descriptions of same, from the pulpit?

reen12

 

[reen12]

I think that people may view all of this - from solely a ‘soul’
perspective. As one does the ‘unoffical’ teaching on Limbo.

We’re not only talking souls, here, we’re speaking, too,
of hearts crushed in pain, thinking of those in purgatory,
who require ‘ransom’ money, or those couples who were told,
in decades past, that their infant who died, before Baptism,
was now in a place of perfect natural happiness, never to see
God in the face. What toll did this ‘unofficial’ teaching take,
on the heart of a mother, told that she would not be with her
child, in eternity - all for want of the saving waters.

Limbo was one of the most ‘official’ unofficial teaching.
In 1954, I was required to memorize the defintion of Limbo.

home.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

This kind of thing is generated from a concept of
grace as ‘commodity.’

This is* why* it was a mere hop, skip and a jump - to convince the ‘buyer’ that grace could be bought and sold.

“Treasury of Grace.”

Perhaps an indulgence tucked away, in the safety deposit box,
to be ‘applied’ at death?
Light years removed from Amazing Grace.

Sacraments as ‘fonts of grace’ - hydraulic imagery employed -
as a descriptor, of the love and gifts of God Almighty.

reen12

 

[Jimmy_B]

You mean kind like today when many pastors ask for money so people can receive miracles from God?

you know send me 200, 500, 2000 dollars, the more you send the more you get type of thing?

:knight2: :knight2:

…send me 200, 500, 2000 dollars, the more you send the more you get type of thing?

Don’t forget about the word, “abundantly” this is one of the favorite words, use by these people today (especially on TV), when describing the "reward that you’ll receive”; if you will allow us, to help you part with your money. Plus, you’ll be able to walk again, see again and your cancer will be cured.

Does anyone here actually believe that medium size, to large; to super-large size, non-Catholic, Christian denominations build their Churches or anything else, with anything else, other than money from their parishioners’?

Churches are “non-profit” organizations (or, at least they are suppose to be) , which means, that they all need, take and use donations and it ain’t all, “going to the needy”.

Non-Catholic Christianity in America, especially when talking about the “Super Churches”, is a big business, meaning they rake in a lot of money.

“Indulgence” is a “Catholic word” used only to describe a “Catholic Problem” occuring 500 years ago, which allegedly justified the divisions that we see today in Christianity, don’t you undersatand the semantical arguement here? “Indulences” don’t apply to Protestant denominations today… or so they say.

If this isn’t hypocrisy on a grand scale, then what is?

Excellent post.

Peace

 

[Mickey]

What toll did this ‘unofficial’ teaching take, on the heart of a mother, told that she would not be with her
child, in eternity - all for want of the saving waters.

As mom prepares for bed,
Many tears are shed.
Her child she may not see,
For all eternity.

 

[Joysong]

**Non-**Catholic Christianity in America, especially when talking about the “Super Churches”, is a big business, meaning they rake in a lot of money.

Is there any longer a doubt that you have a definite antipathy for non-catholics? I noticed you did not mention the scandals that also befall the Catholic faith, which sad to say are very real, and have also made headlines.

 

[wisdomseeker]

…send me 200, 500, 2000 dollars, the more you send the more you get type of thing?

Don’t forget about the word, “abundantly” this is one of the favorite words, use by these people today (especially on TV), when describing the "reward that you’ll receive”; if you will allow us, to help you part with your money. Plus, you’ll be able to walk again, see again and your cancer will be cured.

Does anyone here actually believe that medium size, to large; to super-large size, non-Catholic, Christian denominations build their Churches or anything else, with anything else, other than money from their parishioners’?

Churches are “non-profit” organizations (or, at least they are suppose to be) , which means, that they all need, take and use donations and it ain’t all, “going to the needy”.

Non-Catholic Christianity in America, especially when talking about the “Super Churches”, is a big business, meaning they rake in a lot of money.

“Indulgence” is a “Catholic word” used only to describe a “Catholic Problem” occuring 500 years ago, which allegedly justified the divisions that we see today in Christianity, don’t you undersatand the semantical arguement here? “Indulences” don’t apply to Protestant denominations today… or so they say.

If this isn’t hypocrisy on a grand scale, then what is?

Excellent post.

Peace

exactly! my mother always told us when we criticized others: make sure your tale is clean when looking at others tale.
they are so busy in condemning the CC that they forget what they are doing wrong. the way they condemn the CC if we did not know any better, one would think they are perfect christians.

:knight2: :knight2: