i am presbyterian i want to convert ..

[humble_in_doubt]

I AM NOT BEING ARROGANT, I AM STATING THE ERROR OF HIS THEOLOGY.

As for my Pentecostal friends let them keep wasting their time converting Catholics, when they should be converting non-Christians, but I guess that would mean they do not view Catholics as Christian. You know the whole “whore of Babylon” and “anti-christ” bit the CC (which by the way is an insult to all us Catholics) has been branded with (labeled as such by our grandiose Hero of the Reformation, Luther).

Well, that’s the first time I’ve been called a “whore”.

I understand what you’re saying … and I certainly don’t say the CC is alone (or perhaps even the main instigator) in this whole mess. At this point it’s a self-feeding frenzy. You (and Catholics) will say it’s their fault, protestants will counter with the same charge. You’re both locked into your respective positions & of course you both believe you’re right. So there will likely never be reconciliation. This is obviously good news for people like me who are terrified at the prospect of a tyrannical theocracy (which a unified Christianity would make much more likely).

 

[jam070406]

I understand what you’re saying … and I certainly don’t say the CC is alone (or perhaps even the main instigator) in this whole mess. At this point it’s a self-feeding frenzy. You (and Catholics) will say it’s their fault, protestants will counter with the same charge. You’re both locked into your respective positions & of course you both believe you’re right. So there will likely never be reconciliation. This is obviously good news for people like me who are terrified at the prospect of a tyrannical theocracy (which a unified Christianity would make much more likely).

If it were tyrannical it would not be truly Christian. The two are incompatible. But I’m sure you know this because you seem to have studied the Gospel message.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Well, if the Catholic reaction was “hardly diplomatic or conciliatory” at times, it was because his views were heretical. So yes, there may have been some anger on the part of some Church members. But if recollection serves me right, the Catholic Church had given several chances for Luther to debate and dialogue his views with other Church members. This was done, as a way for the CC, to show Luther he was in error. He was excommunicated after several unsuccessful attempts by the Church to get Luther to recant his heretical views.

I’ve never heard of the church giving Luther the opportunity to hold a “debate”? They compelled him to recant his views (under threat of imprisonment, excommunication, execution, etc.) … that’s about it as far as I know.

If I was treated like that by an organization I once gave my life too, who was breaching the holy trust of my people by using fear mongering to swindle poor widowers out of their last bit of money they needed to feed their children, forget about just starting a reformation. I think Luther was far kinder than I would have been if that sort of insanity was happening in my home town.

And the whole snow-covered dung hill analogy was not inspired by the wickedness he had seen in Rome, but rather his own scrupulosity:

"Like every victim of scrupulosity, he saw nothing in himself but wickedness and corruption. God was the minister of wrath and vengeance. His sorrow for sin was devoid of humble charity and childlike confidence in the pardoning mercy of God and Jesus Christ.

Obviously a Catholic commenting on Luther. It’s funny how religious zealotry creates such a wide gap between reality and fantasy. As for the rest of it … just more of the same. Sad and unfortunate depictions of a freedom fighter simply advocating on behalf of his people who successfully unshackled them from the grips of religious tyranny.

You buy into a very antiquated view of Martin Luther that not even contemporary Catholic theologians believe to be true anymore. As for my opinion … I love the freedom fighters in history. Without men like Martin Luther we would still be riding around in horses and going to the bathroom in outhouses.

I don’t think anything Luther said about the CC is true, but only because I don’t believe in any sort of “whore of Babylon” (as depicted in Revelation), just as I don’t believe in the bible generally speaking. If I were a 15th century German who did believe as Luther did, I would have probably thought the same things he did. I think in retrospect the CC made its bed, and Luther made them lie in it. I certainly don’t think he was perfect (far from it I assume). However, he was bold enough to fight tyranny at the risk of his own life. The rebels in history are the ones who are largely responsible for human progress. After all what great scientist, politician, military general, etc. who simply followed in the mold of the status-quo was ever responsible for ground breaking things? None that I can think of.

 

[josie_L]

I understand what you’re saying … and I certainly don’t say the CC is alone (or perhaps even the main instigator) in this whole mess. At this point it’s a self-feeding frenzy. You (and Catholics) will say it’s their fault, protestants will counter with the same charge. You’re both locked into your respective positions & of course you both believe you’re right. So there will likely never be reconciliation. This is obviously good news for people like me who are terrified at the prospect of a tyrannical theocracy (which a unified Christianity would make much more likely).

I am not locked in some feeding frenzy, I told you I love my Protestant brethren, I harbour no ill-will. But I have also this to say, prejudice/hate stems more from Protestantism to Catholicism than it does by us Catholics towards Protestants. We view Protestants as CHRISTIANS. In fact, quite a few Protestants make a lot of money brandishing the CC as the “Whore of Babylon”. You ever heard of Dave Hunt, James White, Jack Chick, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the SDA’s, Fundamentalists, certain Evangelicals, Bob Jones University, Tim Lehaye (from the Left Behind series) . . . etc. And now because of this belief that we are corrupt and evil, many Protestants are targeting Catholics. So let them, I don’t care. Whether we’re smaller than what we once were, means nothing, truth is truth.

P.S. It’s never going to happen Humble, the CC is not interested in a theocracy.

 

[jam070406]

Humble,
Don’t let your prejudice cloud your reason, hardly tyrannical:

Life and Dignity of the Human Person
The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching. In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia. The value of human life is being threatened by cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and the use of the death penalty. Catholic teaching also calls on us to work to avoid war. Nations must protect the right to life by finding increasingly effective ways to prevent conflicts and resolve them by peaceful means. We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person.

usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.shtml

 

[josie_L]

I’ve never heard of the church giving Luther the opportunity to hold a “debate”? They compelled him to recant his views (under threat of imprisonment, excommunication, execution, etc.) … that’s about it as far as I know.

If I was treated like that by an organization I once gave my life too, who was breaching the holy trust of my people by using fear mongering to swindle poor widowers out of their last bit of money they needed to feed their children, forget about just starting a reformation. I think Luther was far kinder than I would have been if that sort of insanity was happening in my home town.

Obviously a Catholic commenting on Luther. It’s funny how religious zealotry creates such a wide gap between reality and fantasy. As for the rest of it … just more of the same. Sad and unfortunate depictions of a freedom fighter simply advocating on behalf of his people who successfully unshackled them from the grips of religious tyranny.

You buy into a very antiquated view of Martin Luther that not even contemporary Catholic theologians believe to be true anymore. As for my opinion … I love the freedom fighters in history. Without men like Martin Luther we would still be riding around in horses and going to the bathroom in outhouses.

I have already told you that as a result of the Reformation, tyranny was consolidated further into the hands of political leaders such as the Monarchs as they then had power over ecclesiastical matters as well as temporal ones, which had never been the case before the Reformation. So how was Luther a freedom fighter?

And the fact that Luther was scrupulous is well known. You can go on a simple fact-finding search to realize this. So its utterly rude of you to state that this is some grand Catholic conspiracy!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Humble,
Don’t let your prejudice cloud your reason, hardly tyrannical:

When I used the word tyrannical I was referring to what men like Johann Tetzel (under commission by Pope Leo X) was doing to the German people. Sure it doesn’t rise to the level of Stalin or anything like that … but to those Germans affected by his actions (and that of those like him) it was tyrannical all the same.

Obviously no invisible god prevented the CC from falling prey to human nature. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Since there is no god who (under your theory) should have checked the power of the CC (and prevented it from falling into corruption and decadence) – history kindly provided those poor saps in Germany Martin Luther.

I guess the Germans always gave the Romans a hard time … religion was apparently no different. I imagine the 15th century must have given the Roman church a feeling that the barbarian invasions were starting to happen all over again.

 

[josie_L]

I’ve never heard of the church giving Luther the opportunity to hold a “debate”? They compelled him to recant his views (under threat of imprisonment, excommunication, execution, etc.) … that’s about it as far as I know.

newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I have already told you that as a result of the Reformation, tyranny was consolidated further into the hands of political leaders such as the Monarchs as they then had power over ecclesiastical matters as well as temporal ones, which had never been the case before the Reformation. So how was Luther a freedom fighter?

And the fact that Luther was scrupulous is well known. You can go on a simple fact-finding search to realize this. So its utterly rude of you to state that this is some grand Catholic conspiracy!

First I never used the word conspiracy. Second … there’s nothing rude about anything I said. I merely stated the facts and then said how I would have reacted under those circumstances (and I stick to every word I said). Moreover, the sale of indulgences was not administered by any monarch (I’m not sure where you ever got such an idea from). It was administered directly by Rome (this is undisputed history).

In fact the sale of indulgences isn’t even the end of the story. Pope Leo X was using the proceeds to repay Venetian bankers money the church borrowed (under his rule) to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica. You know what Pope Leo’s last name was before becoming Pope? Medici. Do you know who the Medici’s were???

I’ll save you the research time … the Medici’s invented mercantile banking & were the wealthiest family in Europe (and the world) at that time. I mean the guy became bishop at 13 years old … but nahh probably had nothing to do with his family connections?

 

[jam070406]

When I used the word tyrannical I was referring to what men like Johann Tetzel (under commission by Pope Leo X) was doing to the German people. Sure it doesn’t rise to the level of Stalin or anything like that … but to those Germans affected by his actions (and that of those like him) it was tyrannical all the same.

Obviously no invisible god prevented the CC from falling prey to human nature. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Since there is no god who (under your theory) should have checked the power of the CC (and prevented it from falling into corruption and decadence) – history kindly provided those poor saps in Germany Martin Luther.

I guess the Germans always gave the Romans a hard time … religion was apparently no different. I imagine the 15th century must have given the Roman church a feeling that the barbarian invasions were starting to happen all over again.

I understand that this was a horrible, unfortunate part of History. It caused A terrible schism. (this does not justify Luther’s action)
Jesus warned there would wolves in sheep’s clothing. And humans are all subject to sin. (even you)
A few bad sheep do not negate the mission of the Church or the treasure it holds, the gospel message.
And this was hardly an example of a tyrannical theocracy that you so fear.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I understand that this was a horrible, unfortunate part of History. It caused A terrible schism. (this does not justify Luther’s action)
Jesus warned there would wolves in sheep’s clothing. And humans are all subject to sin. (even you)
A few bad sheep do not negate the mission of the Church or the treasure it holds, the gospel message.
And this was hardly an example of a tyrannical theocracy that you so fear.

that’s a fair view & I applaud you for your ability to look at this reasonably.

I will say that there have been tyrannical periods in Catholic history (and Rome was horribly decadent during the time of Luther). This tyranny I’m eluding to was partly due to Catholic monarchs (i.e. the Spanish inquisition). However, there was of course a Roman inquisition (and many were burned at the stake for merely holding a minority opinion or dissenting views).

Those people who were burned alive for merely holding a dissenting opinion are IMO martyrs of freedom. Regardless of what they believed (and I’m sure I disagreed with most of it) they died rather than dishonestly recant their views or back down to religious thuggery. They’re my hero’s!

 

[jam070406]

that’s a fair view & I applaud you for your ability to look at this reasonably.

I will say that there have been tyrannical periods in Catholic history (and Rome was horribly decadent during the time of Luther). This tyranny I’m eluding to was partly due to Catholic monarchs (i.e. the Spanish inquisition). However, there was of course a Roman inquisition (and many were burned at the stake for merely holding a minority opinion or dissenting views).

Those people who were burned alive for merely holding a dissenting opinion are IMO martyrs of freedom. Regardless of what they believed (and I’m sure I disagreed with most of it) they died rather than dishonestly recant their views or back down to religious thuggery. They’re my hero’s!

Thanks, but like I said there are always bad apples all throughtout history. It doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

There were ALOT of really good Catholics throughout History as well. Even ones that objected to the abuse going on in Germany. But when one tries to refute the other side they tend to focus on the negative of that side. I’ve been guilty of it myself.
Just because some humans behaved badly in history does not make the entire gospel message a falsity.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Thanks, but like I said there are always bad apples all throughtout history. It doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

There were ALOT of really good Catholics throughout History as well. Even ones that objected to the abuse going on in Germany. But when one tries to refute the other side they tend to focus on the negative of that side. I’ve been guilty of it myself.
Just because some humans behaved badly in history does not make the entire gospel message a falsity.

I certainly agree with everything you say here … although my personal views toward religion have nothing to do with the reformation (or any of the surrounding events).

I was previously responding to some charges leveled against Luther than seemed unfair and historically inaccurate.

I probably shouldn’t even say I’m “against” religion … I just don’t believe the god depicted in scripture exists … but anyways that’s a different topic altogether.

 

[jam070406]

that’s a fair view & I applaud you for your ability to look at this reasonably.

I will say that there have been tyrannical periods in Catholic history (and Rome was horribly decadent during the time of Luther). This tyranny I’m eluding to was partly due to Catholic monarchs (i.e. the Spanish inquisition). However, there was of course a Roman inquisition (and many were burned at the stake for merely holding a minority opinion or dissenting views).

Those people who were burned alive for merely holding a dissenting opinion are IMO martyrs of freedom. Regardless of what they believed (and I’m sure I disagreed with most of it) they died rather than dishonestly recant their views or back down to religious thuggery. They’re my hero’s!

Might I add, there many points in history where Catholics were slaughtered for not giving up their Faith. But that is neither here nor there at this point in the discussion.
Jesus message seems to be pretty clear. Love! If characters (through History) commit atrocities, even in the name of God, it’s safe to say they are not of Christ. Yes, even if Catholic.

 

[jam070406]

I just don’t believe the god depicted in scripture exists … but anyways that’s a different topic altogether.

You would be such a great player & apologist for the good guys (us Catholics) if you did!

May God bless you.

 

[josie_L]

First I never used the word conspiracy. Second … there’s nothing rude about anything I said. I merely stated the facts and then said how I would have reacted under those circumstances (and I stick to every word I said). Moreover, the sale of indulgences was not administered by any monarch (I’m not sure where you ever got such an idea from). It was administered directly by Rome (this is undisputed history).

In fact the sale of indulgences isn’t even the end of the story. Pope Leo X was using the proceeds to repay Venetian bankers money the church borrowed (under his rule) to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica. You know what Pope Leo’s last name was before becoming Pope? Medici. Do you know who the Medici’s were???

I’ll save you the research time … the Medici’s invented mercantile banking & were the wealthiest family in Europe (and the world) at that time. I mean the guy became bishop at 13 years old … but nahh probably had nothing to do with his family connections?

Firstly, I know that you didn’t say “conspiracy” but everytime I use a Catholic resource you accuse the CC or the Catholic in question of bias (which by the way everyone is when confirming a position) and falsehood or at the very least unreliability. And therefore ipsofacto, it is rude to think this way.

Secondly, I have no idea of what you’re talking about, I never mentioned anything about indulgences and monarchs.

Thirdly, the indulgences were not sold directly by the CC, but by some of her members (and it was never right to do such a thing).

Fourthly, you didn’t answer my question, concerning Luther and his supposed “freedom fighter” status you’ve so graciously bestowed upon him.

P.S. And I know who the Medicis are, I’m the one with the History degree, remember?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Firstly, I know that you didn’t say “conspiracy” but everytime I use a Catholic resource you accuse the CC or the Catholic in question of bias (which by the way everyone is when confirming a position) and falsehood or at the very least unreliability. And therefore ipsofacto, it is rude to think this way.

It’s not rude if what you’re saying is wrong … and rejected by even contemporary Catholic scholars (and it was). I mean if you’re wrong 9 out of 10 times (btw I’m not saying you are, this is just for illustrative purposes) would I be rude to say you’re wrong each of those times (even though you might say something like every time I cite a statistic you object to it)? That’s not logical.

Secondly, I have no idea of what you’re talking about, I never mentioned anything about indulgences and monarchs.

no … but you clearly referred to it inferentially. I was talking about the indulgence scandal, and you responded by passing the buck to monarchs. What was I supposed to think?

Thirdly, the indulgences were not sold directly by the CC, but by some of her members (and it was never right to do such a thing).

the Pope himself commissioned Tetzel, and when Luther complained he was sanctioned (not Tetzel). Therefore, it’s logically absurd to deflect accountability away from the church.

For goodness sake, I can’t stand it when people or organizations refuse to man up and take responsibility for their wrongdoing.

Fourthly, you didn’t answer my question, concerning Luther and his supposed “freedom fighter” status you’ve so graciously bestowed upon him.

P.S. And I know who the Medicis are, I’m the one with the History degree, remember?

I forgot you had a history degree … so then can you see the conflict of interest inherent in the relationship between the Pope and Italian bankers (and the indulgences scandal) that logically gives rise to charges of corruption?

And what was your question concerning Luther? I do view him as a freedom fighter, why am I wrong?

 

[josie_L]

It’s not rude if what you’re saying is wrong … and rejected by even contemporary Catholic scholars (and it was). I mean if you’re wrong 9 out of 10 times (btw I’m not saying you are, this is just for illustrative purposes) would I be rude to say you’re wrong each of those times (even though you might say something like every time I cite a statistic you object to it)? That’s not logical.

Fine, then prove that contemporary Catholic scholars did not view Luther as scrupulous, and that this scrupulosity did not have something to do with the doctrines he held? And it is rude because you do this to me all the time, no matter what I offer you accuse it of bias and unreliability , just because it happens to be a Catholic/Christian source, and you do this I might add without even bothering to see if it may be true.

no … but you clearly referred to it inferentially. I was talking about the indulgence scandal, and you responded by passing the buck to monarchs. What was I supposed to think?

I still don’t know what you’re talking about, I mentioned the monarchs because you stated that Luther was fighting against tyranny, and then I said that was not true, because I had stated that because of the reformation, tyranny was even more surely felt due to the Monarchs having consolidated temporal as well as ecclesial power.

the Pope himself commissioned Tetzel, and when Luther complained he was sanctioned (not Tetzel). Therefore, it’s logically absurd to deflect accountability away from the church.

For goodness sake, I can’t stand it when people or organizations refuse to man up and take responsibility for their wrongdoing.

And I can’t stand it that you made such a big to do about Luther just because I don’t appreciate his snow-covered dung hill approach to righteousness. And you accused me of Arrogance because of this. And went off on a tangent!!

I will have to look into the matter of Tetzel, the Pope, and Luther, but this is not what I remember of indulgences.

I forgot you had a history degree … so then can you see the conflict of interest inherent in the relationship between the Pope and Italian bankers (and the indulgences scandal) that logically gives rise to charges of corruption?

No, you did not forget, and this conversation has gone so far left. that I don’t even know how we got to this point.

And what was your question concerning Luther? I do view him as a freedom fighter, why am I wrong?

For Luther to have support of his heretical views he needed the help of the Monarchy, as such, he, whether willingly or no, gave a great advantage to the King of Germany who was able to use Luther to gain ecclesial power. Therefore, this allowed for Monarchs (because this happened in other Lutheran countries) to have power over temporal and ecclesial matters. Therefore, Luther is not a freedom fighter.

 

[josie_L]

For Luther to have support of his heretical views he needed the help of the Monarchy, as such, he, whether willingly or no, gave a great advantage to the **King of Germany **who was able to use Luther to gain ecclesial power. Therefore, this allowed for Monarchs (because this happened in other Lutheran countries) to have power over temporal and ecclesial matters. Therefore, Luther is not a freedom fighter.

I meant to say German princes.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

For Luther to have support of his heretical views he needed the help of the Monarchy, as such, he, whether willingly or no, gave a great advantage to the King of Germany who was able to use Luther to gain ecclesial power. Therefore, this allowed for Monarchs (because this happened in other Lutheran countries) to have power over temporal and ecclesial matters. Therefore, Luther is not a freedom fighter.

yeah the conversation did go off on a tangent … let’s untangent shall we (hey I just made up a word).